ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS - ARMORY RULINGS - COLLECTED SUBMISSION RETURNS BY NAME (long; 889 kB) - NAME RULINGS
This work contains rulings of precedential relevance from the tenure of Mistress Jaelle of Armida as Laurel Queen of Arms. The selection of material for this collection is my own, and tradition demands that it be disclaimed that this is not an official publication of the Society for Creative Anachronism nor its College of Arms. For the official texts of registrations and returns the reader is directed to the original documents.
I have largely maintained the format of the previous edition of precedents. The one significant exception results from there being a significant body of rulings of a largely administrative nature. I have reverted to the practice used by Owen ap Morgan in editing the first part of the second tenure of Da’ud ibn Auda, and seperated these administrative rulings into their own section.
The texts listed are taken directly from Letters of Acceptance and Return (LoAR), or from the accompanying cover letters (CL). Text in [square brackets] is mine, providing editorial comment, summaries of omitted text, or replacing specific charges or names with more generally applicable versions. In those rare instances where Laurel used square brackets in the original text I have replaced them with {round brackets}. I use ellipses (...) to indicate deleted text, except at the beginning or end of an excerpt, where deleted text is left unmarked. Minor corrections to spelling or grammar are left unmarked, as are my own contributions of such errors. The source of the text is cited at the end in round parentheses, by submitter’s name, date of the LoAR, and page number of the LoAR. Those texts excepted from a cover letter are cited by “CL” and the date of the cover letter.
In service,
Rouland Carre
Palimpsest Herald of Arms
mka Richard R. Hershberger
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS
We have been asked what happens when someone who lives in one kingdom, owns regalia that is legal to him by Society and that kingdoms laws, then moves to another kingdom, where it is against the kingdom laws and or traditions. The answer is very simple; it is grandfathered to him, and he may wear it. Note: this same question has been ruled on, with the same answer, by at least two of my predecessors. (Cover Letter 3/97)
We want to remind the College that we register what is submitted, and not the blazon. We are getting more and more submissions that were done using color copiers or color printers. While we have nothing against using modern technology (Laurel has been known to use it now and then), the colors must be identifiable. If the copier/printer can not produce recognizable tinctures, it shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission may be returned. (Cover Letter 6/97)
He has submitted a general permission to conflict... After much thought and reading of the commentary we are willing to give his arms an automatic CD against anything anyone wishes to register that conflicts with his arms... Even with permission to conflict we do not allow to submissions to be heraldicly identical when they are owned by different people/groups. If he registers any other armory, and wants to give them similar permissions, such permissions will have to be sent out on a letter of intent and judged on a case-by-case basis. We are not willing to give a blanket permission to conflict with his name, since this could impact our record keeping. (Lindorm Eriksson, 7/97 p. 9)
[registering A ram's head erased argent armed Or collared gules.] She has a letter of permission to conflict with... A ram's head erased argent armed Or collared sable.... The administrative handbook simply requires non-identity. Given the blazon for Catherine's badge, one would never draw John's badge and vice-versa (Catherine Lacy de la Roche, 12/97 p. 4)
This submission raised a question on administrative policy; can a submitter apply a free resubmission for an name to the submission of a badge. Free resubmissions for names are available from two different actions. First, a name only submission is returned outright or when both the name and armory is returned. Second, a holding name has been assigned in order to register armory when the submitted name required return. In the first case, the free name resubmission cannot be applied to a badge since armory cannot be registered without a registered name. In the second case, the administrative handbook specifically states holding names may be changed for free. If a submitter chooses to accept a holding name instead of resubmitting, this has the same effect as the submitted name being registered, no return exists and no free resubmission exists. Therefore, the swapping of a free resubmission of a name for an armory submission is not possible. (Gwyddno of Tempio, 2/98 p. 1)
We have been receiving letters of intent which cite web pages as part of their documentation. Let me remind the college that the only web pages that will be accepted across the board as documentation are the ones on the Laurel web page as part of the www.sca.org site. NO other sites are acceptable as they stand. For documentation to accepted from any other site, the entire page(s) of documentation must be sent with the Laurel package, along with information about the site itself. (Cover Letter 4/98)
This is being returned for violating the procedures set forth in the Administrative Handbook. The Administrative Handbook, IV.C.6, states: Any submission involving the transfer of a registered item from one individual or branch to another must include both a statement from the owner authorizing the transfer and a statement from the recipient accepting the transferred material. There was no transfer on the LoI, there was no letter of acceptance from AEthelmearc, and no letter of transfer from [the owner]. (Aethelmearc, Kingdom of, 6/98 p. 12)
While the picture is as [blazon], the blazon on the LoI which matched the blazon on the petition was [different]. Since the petition does not match the submitted armory, it must be returned. (Shire of Ard Ruadh, 6/98 p. 12)
Names and Devices for Incipient Principalities
III.C.5 of the Administrative Handbook currently reads:
"Evidence of Support -- Submissions involving the name or arms of an active branch must include evidence of support for the action on the part of a majority of the active members of the branch. In the case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers. In the case of branches with ruling nobles, such petitions must also include a statement of support from the ruling noble. If a submission would result in the registration or modification of the Branch Name or Branch Arms of a kingdom, principality or equivalent branch, support must be demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted in the relevant official newsletter and certified by the seneschal of the appropriate branch. Branch badge(s), order or award names, and other Branch names (such as names for guilds, Herald's Titles in the case of Kingdom, etc.) do not require support at the Laurel level. Kingdom may require it if they so desire, for their internal procedures."
However, this does not cover the situation for groups that wish to become principalities, since Corpora says the groups have to have a passed name and device, and we don't normally register names and devices for groups of that level until they become official. Therefore, we are planning to add the following to the above to handle those situations:
"If, in the opinion of the crown of the kingdom, the kingdom seneschal and the Society Seneschal a group is making progress towards becoming a principality and has a proven track record, the kingdom may submit a name and device for the group, subject to the requirements above.
"If the group is not approved by the BoD as an official principality within two years of registration, unless a request is made from the Society Seneschal asking for a one year extension, the name and device will be released.
"The format on the LoI would therefore read like this:
"Lower NorthSouth, Kingdom of. Name and device for Incipient Principality. Principality of Lower Pismire. Gules, an aardvark gorged of a crown between three Laurel wreaths Or." (Cover Letter 7/98)
[registering Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood] Daniel is the legal son of Theo of Mightrinwood whose name was registered in 1979. Theo of Mightrinwood died in October 1997. Normally we would not register a name of this form, since it is a violation of VI.3 begins, "Names that unmistakably imply ... close relationship to a protected person ... will generally not be registered." However, based on prior instances of allowing the legal heir to grant permission to conflict or releasing submissions, we will register this, since Daniel is Theo's legal son and heir. (Daniel Theoson of Mightrinwood, 7/98 p. 9)
This [change to the consort's arms] is being returned for not providing enough support for the change. The Administrative Handbook says: "... If a submission would result in the registration or modification of the Branch Name or Branch Arms of a kingdom, principality or equivalent branch, support must be demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted in the relevant official newsletter and certified by the seneschal of the appropriate branch. ..." It has been ruled by Laurel that the polling in the newsletter is required for changes to consort's arms as well. We received no such certification. (Kingdom of Artemesia, 12/98 p. 13)
[registering the Order of theTour d'Or]This conflicts with Tour d'Or Herald, registered to the Kingdom of Caid. However, ... if the crown and the kingdom herald agree, the barony can use the name of the heraldic title for an order name. We have received a statement to that effect from Crescent. [Editor's note: the barony is in the Kingdom of Caid and the herald's title is traditionally used by the barony's herald.] (Barony of Southron Gaard, 1/99 p. 6)
No documentation was provided for [name] outside of the statement that the group used to have this name registered to them, it was released many years ago, and they want to use the name again. However, once an item is released, to be registered it must be registerable under the current rules. (Orion's Gate, Stronghold of, 2/99 p. 10)
This was registered on the LoAR of April, 1999 as his device, and former device was released. This was not what the submitter wished, and he notified us immediately upon receiving notice of registertration. Therefore, we are correcting the situation, and correcting this registration to a badge as the submitter wished. (Brandr þorfinnsson, 6/99 p. 7)
ARMORY RULINGS
Antlers see Horns
[banning the gateway] After some thought we have decided to register this submission, but not register this charge again after the April 1997 Laurel meeting. (Eleanor del Yete, 11/96 p. 1)
[returning a mosque] We can find no indication that a mosque has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. ... Therefore, we need evidence that this depiction of a mosque is a period depiction before we can decide if it is a registerable charge. [This decision was overturned on appeal 5/98.] (`Afra' bint Tamir al-Sahrahwayyiah, 9/97 p. 19)
[a dolmen vs a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintelsI] This conflicts with ..., a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels argent. [i.e. the difference is insignificant]. (David O Kellahan, 11/97 p. 15)
[registering a domed mosque of one minaret] A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are, particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not heraldry.
In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no different from period heraldic depictions of churches.
This is a change to our normal policy of having the first registration of a charge not documented as having been used in period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example. ('Afra' bint Tamir al-Sahrahwayyiah, 5/98 p. 5)
The client has documented [the forked arrow] to 14th century Europe. This is the defining instance of this charge, and a forked arrow is now acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)
Attires see Horns
The basic question raised by this submission is can an augmentation break the rule of tincture? While there is period evidence of the arms of the Empire (Or, an eagle displayed sable) being used as an augmentation (and the proposed augmentation here is the arms of the Middle Kingdom, minus the laurel wreath), only one example of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice. (Eliahu ben Itzhak, 8/97 p. 26)
Banner see Flag
This is being returned for a redraw. As drawn, the bear looks like a teddy bear, and not a medieval bear. Furthermore, it is not clearly in a sejant erect affronty position; normally we would not see the bottom of the animal's feet. (Lezlee of Sundragon, 1/99 p. 13)
Beast-Beaver see Beast-Otter
[returning a brown bull of Saint Luke] While we register brown beasts proper if the animal is found naturally brown, such as a brown rabbit, or a brown hound, this is not a beast, but rather a monster, because of the wings and halo. Since monsters do not have proper coloration, they cannot be brown. (Kamle Kropotove, 5/98 p. 28)
[a cow argent pied sable vs a bull argent pied gules] Pied is not a heraldic charge division nor is it a recognized field treatment. ... While we may allow it as an artistic detail, we do not give any difference for it. (Damyana Luisa Jacinta Abril, 6/98 p. 12)
Calico cats come in a variety of different patterns and color combinations so there is no way to accurately reproduce this emblazon. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 2/97 p. 19)
We are also no longer going to register Bengal tigers proper. They must be in a standard, heraldic tincture (with or without markings). We have registered as proper both gules and Or Bengal tigers, leaving them with no default tincture. Plain natural tigers proper, are still Or, marked sable. (Cover Letter 3/97)
[returning natural tigers proper] The tigers were blazoned as natural tigers on the LoI. Natural tigers, proper, are Or, marked sable. These tigers were actually orange, marked sable... orange tigers are not acceptable for use in the SCA. (Oriana of Bonwicke, 3/97 p. 11)
A question was raised regarding the use of herissony in our blazonry. While the term itself, to the best of our knowledge, is not period, the posture was done in period. Hierosme de Bara's Le Blason des Armoiries (1581) shows a cat in this position. [The submission was blazoned as herissony] (Rowan of Iron Mountain, 8/97 p. 10)
[returning a cat spotted of various tinctures] The use of multi colored spots appear to be unique to the heraldic panther in period. Just as we do no longer allow the use of unicorn horns on random animals, neither do we allow the use of variously tinctured spots. (Caintigern of Ainsley, 3/98 p. 19)
[a deer vs a bagwyn] The LoI argued that there should be a CD between a deer and a bagwyn because they were considered different charges in period. However, the bagwyn is visually a deer with an odd tail. The question then is how distinct was the bagwyn considered in period? Its having a distinct name is prima facie evidence for its being distinct, but otherwise the evidence is not encouraging. It apparently had no existence outside of heraldry, as compared with the antelope which is found in bestiaries. The word is not found in the OED (first edition). As a charge it is a very late invention, with its first attested appearance being from c. 1539. (By way of comparison, the antelope is found in English heraldry from the reign of Henry IV.) Finally, it seems to only occur in the heraldry of one family, albeit a prominent one. Denys points out that the putative bagwyn as the supporter of the 17th century Lords Hunsdon is actually a yale. Based on this, we feel that the bagwyn is an insignificant variant of a stag which happens to have its own name, and there is no countable difference between it and a deer. (Felix Selwyn, 11/98 p. 13)
[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)
Elephants proper are gray, which is treated the same as stone (gray) and natural dolphins (also gray) for purposes of contrast, as a metal. (Ekatarina Iadoroyna Kharlampieva, 7/96 p. 2)
Beast-Goat see Beast-Sheep & Goat
Hedgehogs impaling grapes are found in period rolls. (Mergriet van Edelare, 7/96 p. 3)
[returning a grey horse proper] ...grey tends to blur the line between argent and sable. Of the people attending the Laurel meeting, roughly half of them saw this horse as black and the other half as white. Barring period evidence of grey being used for horses in armory, this submission will have to be returned. (Ivan the Illustrated, 7/96 p. 20)
Beast-Lemming see Beast-Rat
Beast-Lion see Beast-Cat & Lion
[returning a sea otter flotant supine] The posture flotant supine is not heraldic. It is no more acceptable than mortant. (Iago ap Heilin, 9/97 p. 23)
[There is] nothing for the difference between a beaver and an otter. (Otto Castor, 5/98 p. 25)
[a lemming vs a rat] There is ... nothing between a lemming and a rat. (Ekaterina Volkova, 3/99 p. 10)
[returning a sheep mullety of various tinctures] This is at least a two-fold extension of known period practice. The panther's variegated spots weren't an arbitrary armorial invention; he appears with them in medieval bestiaries. In this submission not only have they been changed to stars, but also they've been applied to a beast with which they were never associated. Therefore we are returning this for non-period style. (Anna Stitcher, 7/96 p. 15)
[blazoning a lamb] Normally we do not permit the "baby" forms of an animal. For the sake of the cant on the name, Lambert, we are permitting it here. (Gwendolen Lambert, 8/96 p. 4)
[returning a Paschal goat] Just as a unicornate horse is banned because it blurs the distinction between a unicorn and a horse, the use of a Pascal goat blurs the distinction between a goat and a Paschal lamb, making this run afoul of RfS VII.7.a. (Tryphena von Stargard, 2/97 p. 24)
Beast-Wolf see Beast-Dog & Wolf
[a church bell vs. a hawk's bell] [There is a] CD for difference in type of the bells. (Helena O'Shea, 6/97 p. 6)
[a handbell vs a church bell] We give no difference between a handbell and [a] church bell. (Carillion, Barony of, 3/99 p. 13)
Bend & Bendlet see Ordinary
[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)
[a duck close vs an eagle close] There is nothing for type of ... charges. (Jean le Confus, 11/96 p. 14)
[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)
[an owl vs. an owl affronty] This conflicts with... [i.e. there is no CD for posture]. (Euphemia Acropolites, 7/97 p. 14)
[falcons rising wings addorsed respectant vs vultures combattant, wings elevanted and addorsed] This is clear... with one CD for type of primary charge and one for [a separate difference]. (Thorfinnr inn vegsvinni Ingason, 2/ 98 p. 11)
[birds rising, wings elevated and addorsed vs birds volant, wings addorsed] A possible conflict was called against Gavin Hawkins Per chevron embattled argent and vert, three hawks volant, wings addorsed, counterchanged. Since volant and rising are both period postures (albeit rare ones), and are visually distinct, we are willing to grant [a] CD for changes to the charges. (Alan of Gravesend 3/98 p. 6)
Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)
[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)
While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes. (Caitríona ní Bhriain 7/96 p. 9)
...there are several distinct forms of the vajhra based on how many prongs it has; we have blazoned this as a three pronged vajhra to distinguish it from a five pronged one. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)
[blazoning a lamb] Normally we do not permit the "baby" forms of an animal. For the sake of the cant on the name, Lambert, we are permitting it here. (Gwendolen Lambert, 8/96 p. 4)
Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference. Sustained charges are large - large enough in fact that if they were not being held that they would be considered a co-primary, and do count for difference. (Cover Letter 10/96)
[a field blazoned bendy of eight] It has been our custom not to [blazon the number of pieces], on the grounds that the precise number makes no difference. Certainly the number of pieces makes no difference under our rules. And there is ample evidence that during much of our period, at least, it made no heraldic difference. However, Fause Losenge has been able to provide evidence that in period it was a distinction that was not infrequently blazoned in period. Therefore, since it appears to be important to the submitter, we will go on the side of period evidence, and blazon it. (Gene the Black, 12/96 p. 4)
[registering nine lozenges three, three, and three] While we would normally blazon this as a semy, this form was important to the submitter, and Fause Losenge provided documentation for period blazons that were equally as precise. (Ximena Maria de Padilla, 1/97 p. 12)
[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)
A question was raised about heraldic seahorses versus natural ones. Going through the files, and pulling most of what we have blazoned as a seahorse, natural seahorse, or hippocampus, we found out that a number of them were either misindexed, and/or misblazoned. Since we give a CD between the seahorse (the heraldic monster, half horse and half fish), and the natural seahorse (the fish), this could lead to problems. Additionally, some of the scribes were confused as to which one a hippocampus was, since it glosses both ways, depending on what source you use.
Therefore, we have reblazoned all the misblazons, and have substituted the term natural seahorse for hippocampus. As with all heraldic versus natural charges, the default is the heraldic item, so a seahorse is the monster, and the natural seahorse the fish. (Cover Letter 3/97)
We are also no longer going to register Bengal tigers proper. They must be in a standard, heraldic tincture (with or without markings). We have registered as proper both gules and Or Bengal tigers, leaving them with no default tincture. Plain natural tigers proper, are still Or, marked sable. (Cover Letter 3/97)
The monk-fish... could also be blazoned as a mer-monk vested... However, since the submitters have provided a picture from the 1491 edition of Hortus Sanitatis which states "a passing monk-fish steers a course through busy sea traffic while scholars discourse." The 'monk-fish' is in the company of a mermaid, a lobster and miscellaneous fish and a boat in this sea. Furthermore, the submitted monk fish is drawn virtually identical to the one from period. Therefore, we have opted for the period term, even though it could lead to confusion in the future, should someone wish to register the natural fish which is called a monkfish. If this is done, it would be blazoned as a natural monk-fish. (Saint Giles, College of, 5/97 p. 1)
A question was raised regarding the use of herissony in our blazonry. While the term itself, to the best of our knowledge, is not period, the posture was done in period. Hierosme de Bara's Le Blason des Armoiries (1581) shows a cat in this position. [It was blazoned as herissony] (Rowan of Iron Mountain, 8/97 p. 10)
[registering Sable, three squirrels rampant surrounding a laurel wreath Or] We are aware this is not a very elegant blazon. However, the laurel wreath is significantly smaller than the squirrels, and we wanted to make it clear which was the primary charge. (Canton of Nordleigh, 2/98 p. 8)
The catamount was blazoned on the LoI as effarouché. While al-Jamal has done a good job of documenting the term, none of the documentation points to it as a period term. Since it is not clear that it is period, we are blazoning the catamount as rampant since that is a standard blazonary term. If period evidence is found, we would be willing to reconsider our decision. (Margret nic Kinnon, 3/98 p. 12)
There is a well-established rule that one cannot blazon one's way out of a conflict. As a general rule this is true, but it should not be taken to overrule period interpretation. For example, "Argent, a fess sable" could also be blazoned as "Sable, a chief and a base argent". We would not infer therefore that "Argent, on a fess sable three eagles argent" conflicts with "Sable, in fess three eagles argent" with only one CD for the removal of the peripheral charges. Not all possible blazons are equally plausible, and implausible blazons don't necessarily result in a conflict. (Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir, 4/98 p. 7)
Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)
Bordure see Ordinary
[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)
Bread see Foodstuffs
[Per saltire, four caltraps vs. four caltrops in cross, points elongated to center] There is...[no difference] for orientation of the caltraps, which are virtually symmetrical. (Gunter Aldrich vom Schwartzwald, 7/96 p. 19)
[a caltrap vs. a mullet of four points] Since a mullet of four points is not a period charge, and since the normal depiction of a caltrap is not significantly different from a mullet of four points, these two charges conflict. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/97 p. 11)
[a candle vs. a a candle and candlestick] The candlestick was significant enough to provide the necessary difference. [Compare this with the ruling of 5/98 infra. The difference between the two rulings is the depictions under consideration.] (Akitsuki Yoshimitsu, 4/97 p. 5)
[a candle...in a candlestick vs a candle...sconced] The candlestick is less than half the charge in both cases, in which case its tincture gives no CD. [Compare this with the ruling of 4/97 supra. The difference between the two rulings is the depictions under consideration.] (Principality of Northshield, 5/98 p. 25)
[a candle issuant from a handleless flat candlestick vs a candle] There is nothing for the addition of the handleless flat candlestick. (Starkhafn, Barony of, 5/99 p. 14)
[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)
This is Argent, chapé ployé azure... However, that means that the chapé is charged, which is not allowed. [The submission was returned for this reason.] (Elizabella Marchant, 5/98 p. 24)
This is clear ... with one CD for the removal of the bordure, and a second for the addition of the overall charge. While it is true that there is only one CD for changing the type of any secondary charge, including peripherals, that is because all secondaries are dealt with from the same section of the rules X.4.b. and overall charges are dealt with in X.4.c. [i.e. a group of overall charges are not a secondary group] (Borek Vitalievich Volkov, 1/98 p. 3)
[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for violating the long-standing precedent of using two different sizes of the same charge on the field. (Cadell Blaidd Du, 3/98 p. 15)
[registering Argent, two drakkars sable between two scarpes azure] This is clear of ... Argent, three eagles in bend sinister between two scarpes azure. The arrangement of charges in bend between bendlets is period, as in the arms of Hacket, Argent, three fleurs-de-lis in bend between two cotises gules. (Papworth p. 854). There are three possible interpretations: that the interior charges are primaries and the bendlets secondaries, that the bendlets are primaries and the interior charges are secondaries, or that this is a charged bend and the "interior" charges are actually tertiaries. The last is the only interpretation which results in conflict, and it is the least likely of the three. Mundane heraldry texts consistently blazon this arrangement as {interior charges} between two bendlets or cotises. It is clear that all the charges are considered as being on the field. Whichever charges are primary or secondary, this results in this submission being clear. (Brynhildr uppsaling Grimkelsdottir, 4/98 p. 7)
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 .... (Barony of Skraeling Althing, 5/98 p. 26)
While cotises and other charges on the field would be considered separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary charges. Precedent holds that a peripheral charge gets only one CD for type vs. a non-peripheral secondary charge [June 1997 LOAR, pp.10-11]; therefore there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. Since the secondary charges on the submitted armory are of two different types, it does not qualify for RFS X.4.j.ii; under X.4.j.i there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary charges. Note if the secondaries were identical, two bears or two griffins, this conflict would be cleared. (Rowan Killian, 6/98 p. 17)
We have not allowed charges to surmount flaunches for the past sixteen years. [The submission was returned.] (Garreth Emeric, 9/98 p. 10)
[Sable, semy of compass stars elongated palewise, a chevron Or] is clear of ...Per chevron sable semy of compass stars Or, and purpure, a chevron and in base an Irish harp Or. [The] semy is a separate group of secondaries from the harp, giving one CD for the difference in the fields, and one for the addition of the harp. (Johann von Sternberg, 5/99 p. 2)
The question was raised in commentary about the bend sharing one of the tinctures of the checky field. Some period similar arms are those of Bekering, Checky argent and azure a bend argent (Dictionary of British Armorials), Robert Chamberlain: Paly of six argent and gules on a chief of the last three escutcheons of the first (Anglo-Norman Armory II), von Studnitz: Argent a bend lozengy argent and gules (Siebmacher f.57), von Traupitz: Checky sable and argent on a chief sable two mullets of six points argent (Siebmacher f.151), and von Caldis: Bendy sable and Or a chief Or charged with a demi-lion naissant sable (Gelre f.33v.) This shows a general use of multiply divided fields with stripe ordinaries throughout Europe and over the whole SCA heraldic period (Anglo-Norman being early, Siebmacher being late, Gelre being in the middle.) (Luciana Maria Novella Di Carlo, 6/98 p. 7)
Cheese see Foodstuffs
[A zule vs. a chess rook] ...in period they were not considered the same charge, and there is no real visual similarity, [so] there is a CD between the two. (Anas ibn Haroun Abd al-Zaki, 7/96 p. 1)
[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)
Chevron see Ordinary
Chief see Ordinary
[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)
[returning Per chevron sable and argent, a hart salient proper] If the hart were in an heraldic tincture this might technically have acceptable contrast. Brown, however, is not a true heraldic tincture, and we are not inclined to give it any leeway. (Andelcrag, Barony of, 2/97 p. 23)
[returning per bend barry sable and Or and checky sable and Or ... a bend Or fimbriated ... gules] This is being returned for breaking the rule of tincture, by having a metal on a metal. The gules fimbriation lies entirely on sable on the checky side, and on an equally divided sable and Or field on the other, making the field the fimbriation lies on primarily sable. (Wolfker der Jäger, 10/97 p. 10)
While we allow maintained charges to break tincture, as drawn the sable rapier is too thin to be seen on the purpure field. (Michallet du Dauphiné, 12/97 p. 11)
The question was raised in commentary about the bend sharing one of the tinctures of the checky field. Some period similar arms are those of Bekering, Checky argent and azure a bend argent (Dictionary of British Armorials), Robert Chamberlain: Paly of six argent and gules on a chief of the last three escutcheons of the first (Anglo-Norman Armory II), von Studnitz: Argent a bend lozengy argent and gules (Siebmacher f.57), von Traupitz: Checky sable and argent on a chief sable two mullets of six points argent (Siebmacher f.151), and von Caldis: Bendy sable and Or a chief Or charged with a demi-lion naissant sable (Gelre f.33v.) This shows a general use of multiply divided fields with stripe ordinaries throughout Europe and over the whole SCA heraldic period (Anglo-Norman being early, Siebmacher being late, Gelre being in the middle.) (Luciana Maria Novella Di Carlo, 6/98 p. 7)
The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules., and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided used difference tincture classes for each half of the field.
This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the SCA with tinctures from the different classes. (Kathern Thomas Gyelle Spence, 10/98 p. 12)
[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)
This hereby overturns the ban on people of baronial rank using coronets in their arms. Henceforth, in addition to royal peers, court barons/esses may use coronets in their arms. Note: this does not include territorial barons/esses, since that is not a permanent rank. Just as a sitting king/queen/prince/princess cannot put a coronet on their arms until after they have attained the rank of count/ess or viscount/ess, since, while it is rare, there have been cases of royalty who have not completed their reign, neither can a territorial baron/ess, unless they are already a court baron/ess, use a coronet, since they have not attained a permament barional rank.
This was probably one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make as Laurel, as there were strong arguments on both sides, with people whose opinions I valued making cogent arguments to both keep and overturn the ban.
However, the Society has changed a great deal since the ban was first put into place, in the early 80's. One of these changes is that we hold historical recreation to be our ideal goal, however unrealized this goal may be. The equation of a crown/coronet (or any other charge) in a coat of arms with the rank of the bearer is almost entirely post-period. While we have no intention of overturning our rules on reserved regalia, we see little point in having regalia reserved in one situation but not another. (We exempt the laurel wreath from this decision, since it is reserved to official SCA groups, not individuals.) Therefore, as we said above, effective with this decision, and having discussed this with Laurel designate, court baron/ess may use a coronet in their arms, so long as it does not use the embattlements of county rank, or the strawberry leaves of ducal rank. (Tsivia bas Tamara of Amberview, 5/99 p. 7)
The quadruple mount overwhelmingly resembles a crown, {and the submitter is not entitled to display one on her arms.} (Laurel had been inclined to allow the charge, but at the Laurel meeting where it was viewed, my staff, who had not seen the LoI, immediately started looking for evidence of her entitlement to use a crown, since they all thought it was one until the blazon was read. This served to change our mind.). The submitter is correct in stating that it is a period charge. However, that is not relevant in matters of presumption. (Kurdun þe Pilegrim, 5/99 p. 15)
[registering a fess vert fimbriated and cotised] Having fimbriation and cotising in the same tinctures is a definite weirdness, but since that is the only weirdness in the design, it is registerable. (Siobhan nic Eoin, 10/97 p. 6)
[returning ...on a fess...a dolphin between two barrulets] It would be extremely difficult to visually distinguish this armory from the noted similar theoretical armory Azure on a fess wavy cotised between three scallops inverted argent a dolphin naiant vert." The space between the cotises" and the fess" is very small and blue and green are similar enough that we doubt the difference will be perceived. As a general rule, heraldic practices which blur the distinctions between standard heraldic practices are not registered (in this case, the standard practices are cotising vs. tertiary charges). Therefore, we will not allow this type of depiction. (Ginevra de' Rossi, 12/97 p. 9)
While cotises and other charges on the field would be considered separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary charges. Precedent holds that a peripheral charge gets only one CD for type vs. a non-peripheral secondary charge [June 1997 LOAR, pp.10-11]; therefore there is only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges. Since the secondary charges on the submitted armory are of two different types, it does not qualify for RFS X.4.j.ii; under X.4.j.i there is no CD for changing the type only of the tertiary charges. Note if the secondaries were identical, two bears or two griffins, this conflict would be cleared. (Rowan Killian, 6/98 p. 17)
[returning two bendlets cotised] Since no documentation has been produced for cotising multiple ordinaries, we see no reason to overturn ... precedent. (Enoch Sutherland, 12/98 p. 12)
[registering a pall inverted 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 wierdness. (Pietro Niccolo da San Tebaldo, 8/96 p. 5)
[returning Per saltire, a saltire cotised counterchanged] This is being returned per RFS VIII.3 for excessive counterchanging. (Rowan O Moroghoe, 10/96 p. 8)
[returning Barry... two flaunches counterchanged] This is being returned for obtrusive modernity and excessive counterchanging, barring period evidence of flaunches being counterchanged of the field. (Lora Anne the Silent, 4/97 p. 16)
[returning Per saltire vert and argent, a gurges counterchanged] This is being returned for excessive counterchanging and unidentifiability. The counterchanging removes the identifiability (such as it is in the first place) of the gurges. Furthermore this submission runs afoul of RfS VIII.4.d, Modern Style, since it resembles an op-art designs. (Tomas de Valle de Bravo, 7/97 p. 20)
This is being returned for excessive counterchanging. The fret counterchanged over the gyronny field is virtually unidentifiable. (Armand de la Croix, 11/97 p. 13)
The only time we permit a charge to be counterchanged over another is when they are both ordinaries. (Shire of Crystal Crags, 12/98 p. 13)
[registering Quarterly argent and sable, a cross moline quarter-pierced, counterchanged] This cross is at the very limits of acceptability for counterchanging. (Etienne de Bracieux, 1/99 p. 6)
[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)
While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes. (Caitríona ní Bhriain 7/96 p. 9)
[A cross potent Or between four crosses couped argent vs a cross of Jerusalem Or.] The Cross of Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does. There is one CD for the field, but there is nothing for changing the tincture of less than half the group. (Gregory Tobias Barre, 7/96 p. 18)
[A cross crosslet fleury vs a cross couped and vs a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)
[a Latin cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] There is nothing for the difference between a cross of Santiago and a Latin cross flory. (Bruinneach nic Thighearnain; 9/96 p. 18)
[crosses bottony fitchy vs Maltese crosses] There is a CD for changing the type of each of the three charges, but the change...is not substantial enough to invoke X.2. (Andro Bruce, 10/96 p. 9)
[returning a San Dominio crucifix argent] This is being returned for violating VII.7.a., armorial identifiability. While evidence was produced that crucifixes were used in period, they had the figure of Jesus in a different tincture than that of the underlying cross. With the entire crucifix in one tincture, it blurs into one amorphous mass. Making the underlying cross one tincture and Jesus another should take care of this problem. (Francesco Greco, 1/97 p. 17)
[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)
[a cross doubly pommeled elongated palewise vs a cross moline] [There is] nothing for the difference between the two crosses. (Petros Monomachos, 2/97 p. 22)
[a cross formy fitchy vs a Maltese cross] There [is a CD] for the type of cross. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)
[a cross formy fitchy vs a cross formy fitchy throughout] In general there is a difference between an ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary throughout vs. its non-throughout version. Most types of crosses work more like non-ordinaries, but crosses formy are exceptional: in their throughout form they in many ways act as ordinaries. In particular both crosses and crosses formy are occasionally found overlying quartered arms, and crosses formy having flat ends merge into the edge of the shield. This may not apply to crosses in general, but in this instance there is the necessary second CD. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)
[a cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] This conflicts with ... the only CD for fieldlessness. (Balian of Boxgrove Hall, 12/ 97 p. 9)
While some commenters were concerned that the cross arrondi was "modern" in appearance, in fact this type cross was found on the Bayeux Tapestry. (Ælric Kyrri, 2/ 98 p. 9)
[an equal-armed Celtic cross formy vs a Celtic cross] There is ... nothing for ... the details of the crosses. (Kolfinna Fraser, 2/98 p. 19)
[registering a Latin cross inverted] The question was raised as to whether an inverted cross would be considered offensive or would be considered to be mocking religion. Laurel, who is Jewish, does not know enough about Christianity to decide this issue without further information. Laurel received a letter from a Methodist Minister who is also an SCA herald, which provided us with the necessary information with which to decide this issue. We quote her letter... [what follows is an excerpt] "It is my opinion that such a charge is, in and of itself, not offensive. The use of such a symbol to represent overtly anti-Christian sentiment is postperiod and not widespread. Within period this was used frequently as an emblem of St. Peter, who by tradition was crucified upside down as he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Christ. I could send you bibliographic references if you wish. Were a Latin Cross inverted displayed with other charges which could be taken in the twentieth century as "satanic" (such as a mullet of five points, a skull, gouts, and a candle) then I would have difficulty interpreting it as a period charge, but in the blazon you described I find it entirely acceptable. (Aaron Graves, 10/98 p. 4)
[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)
The submitter has appealed the previous return of his submission for using a non-period cross by providing a copy of a picture from Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry which shows a similar cross. However, he was only able to find the cross he wants in one place in Foster's, and Foster's is a 19th century redraw of medieval armory. And, Foster was not copying from medieval originals, but rather from 18th and 19th century editions of Renaissance copies of the medieval originals. Brault's redraw in Aspologia III shows a standard cross. [The submitter] also provided a copy of a period woodcut, showing a cross similar, but not identical to what he is submitting. Since the cross he is submitting is not the same as what is in the period woodcut, it does not help his case. Since we have used this woodcut for documentation in a different case to register the cross in the woodcut as an unblazoned variant of formy, if he resubmits drawing the cross to look like the one in the woodcut, barring any other problems, it should be acceptable. (Séamus Ó Cuileáin, 12/98 p. 15)
A cross of Coldharbour is an SCA invention considered to be identical to a Celtic cross throughout. (Jubal Bieber, 12/98 p. 20)
[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)
Crown see Coronet
[a crutch vs a crutch fracted] This is clear ...with one CD for change of the color of the crutch and one for the fracting. (Aran Darkhelm, 1/98 p. 8)
[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)
Difference-Armory-Insignificant
[Per saltire, four caltraps vs. four caltrops in cross, points elongated to center] There is...[no difference] for orientation of the caltraps, which are virtually symmetrical. (Gunter Aldrich vom Schwartzwald, 7/96 p. 19)
[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)
[urdy vs embattled] There is ... nothing for line of division. (Arinbjorn Ragnarsson, 1/97 p. 18)
[an annulet of oak leaves conjoined vs a laurel wreath] This is being returned for conflict with [armory]. Period Laurel wreaths can be drawn as a closed wreath, and they can be drawn with leaves looking remarkably like the submitted form... (West, Kindom of the, 1/97 p. 21)
[a cross doubly pommeled elongated palewise vs a cross moline] [There is] nothing for the difference between the two crosses. (Petros Monomachos, 2/97 p. 22)
[a lamb's head cabossed vs. a ram's head cabossed] A lamb's head and a ram's head, both cabossed, are not [significantly] different. Unlike a stag's rack, the prominence of the ram's horns depends very much on the type of ram the artist depicts. If one of the varieties with less prominent horns which lie closer to the head is selected, the lambs ears and the ram's horns will not be as distinct. (Maritsa Milovich, 4/97 p. 15)
[Saint Michael...wings displayed vs. a fury rampant affrontee] There is... nothing for type between one winged humanoid to another. (Joseph Bearshoulders of Ashwell, 4/97 p. 17)
[a caltrap vs. a mullet of four points] Since a mullet of four points is not a period charge, and since the normal depiction of a caltrap is not significantly different from a mullet of four points, these two charges conflict. (Garmon Woodworth, 6/97 p. 11)
[an owl vs. an owl affronty] This conflicts with... [i.e. there is no CD for posture]. (Euphemia Acropolites, 7/97 p. 14)
[a dolmen vs a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintelsI] This conflicts with ..., a dolmen of three uprights capped by two lintels argent. [i.e. the difference is insignificant]. (David O Kellahan, 11/97 p. 15)
[a cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] This conflicts with ... the only CD for fieldlessness. (Balian of Boxgrove Hall, 12/ 97 p. 9)
[a bear antlered vs a bear] This conflicts... While there is a prior precedent granting a CD (for rabbits), in the case of Donata Ivanovna Basistova, May, 1995); the LoAR stated that visually the antlers were similar to adding wings. This is not the case here. Furthermore, adding wings is a period practice so could be considered a valid form of cadency. It is extremely rare to see beasts with added horns like this in period armory. Therefore both historically (barring evidence to the contrary) and visually adding the attires is not worth a CD. (Sean Donald of Caithness, 2/98 p. 15)
[an apple tree vs a willow tree] This conflicts with ... nothing for changing the type of tree. (Alexandra de la Pomerai, 2/ 98 p. 17)
[a winged sea-horse vs a winged sea-unicorn] This conflicts ... While a horse is a CD from a unicorn, the addition of wings and fish tail to each creates an overwhelming similarity with which the remaining details of the horn and beard cannot compete. (Anastasia Elizabeth Courteney, 2/98 p. 18)
[an equal-armed Celtic cross formy vs a Celtic cross] There is ... nothing for ... the details of the crosses. (Kolfinna Fraser, 2/98 p. 19)
[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)
[a thistle Or vs a thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or] The slipping and leaving is the major part of a thistle, by which standard changing the blossom tincture alone is not be worth a CD. (Gavin MacGregor of Perth, 3/98 p. 21)
[a three-headed hydra vs a dragon] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)
[a three-headed hydra vs a seven-headed hydra] Details of the dragons, including number of heads... count for nothing. (Thomas Grayson of Falconridge, 3/98 p. 22)
We give no difference between an eagle's jamb and a dragon's jamb. [However] the default for a dragon's jamb is claws up and the default for an eagle's jamb is claw's down.... (Barony of One Thousand Eyes, 4/98 p. 19)
Blazoned on the LoI as an osprey, as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ... (Gwenfron Bran, 4/98 p. 24)
[a dexter gauntlet clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William MacGregor, 5/98 p. 22)
[a candle...in a candlestick vs a candle...sconced] The candlestick is less than half the charge in both cases, in which case its tincture gives no CD. (Principality of Northshield, 5/98 p. 25)
[There is] nothing for the difference between a beaver and an otter. (Otto Castor, 5/98 p. 25)
[a mullet of five greater and five lesser points vs a sun] There is ... nothing for the difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet. (Roderick Conall MacLeod, 5/98 p. 28)
[a cow argent pied sable vs a bull argent pied gules] Pied is not a heraldic charge division nor is it a recognized field treatment. ... While we may allow it as an artistic detail, we do not give any difference for it. (Damyana Luisa Jacinta Abril, 6/98 p. 12)
[a quatrefoil vs a cinquefoil] According to the LoAR of 9/90, page 16 "There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." Regretfully, this is in conflict ... (Medwe Janos, 8/98 p. 21)
[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)
[a deer vs a bagwyn] The LoI argued that there should be a CD between a deer and a bagwyn because they were considered different charges in period. However, the bagwyn is visually a deer with an odd tail. The question then is how distinct was the bagwyn considered in period? Its having a distinct name is prima facie evidence for its being distinct, but otherwise the evidence is not encouraging. It apparently had no existence outside of heraldry, as compared with the antelope which is found in bestiaries. The word is not found in the OED (first edition). As a charge it is a very late invention, with its first attested appearance being from c. 1539. (By way of comparison, the antelope is found in English heraldry from the reign of Henry IV.) Finally, it seems to only occur in the heraldry of one family, albeit a prominent one. Denys points out that the putative bagwyn as the supporter of the 17th century Lords Hunsdon is actually a yale. Based on this, we feel that the bagwyn is an insignificant variant of a stag which happens to have its own name, and there is no countable difference between it and a deer. (Felix Selwyn, 11/98 p. 13)
[piles issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth. Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we give nothing for the enarching of the piles. (Seumas as a' Ghlinne Easgaiche, 12/98 p. 12)
[an ox's head caboshed vs a bull's head caboshed] There is... [no difference] between an ox's head and a bull's head. (Vidar Oxenstierna, 2/99 p. 14)
[a boot vs a leg] We grant no difference between a [human] leg and a boot (Leonore of Black Diamond, 2/99 p. 17)
[a Catherine's wheel vs a wheel] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between a wheel and a Catherine's wheel. (Katherine Aylwyn de Chaliers, 3/99 p. 13)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)
We give no difference between a hand and a gauntlet... (Brian Brock, 5/99 p. 14)
[a candle issuant from a handleless flat candlestick vs a candle] There is nothing for the addition of the handleless flat candlestick. (Starkhafn, Barony of, 5/99 p. 14)
[a willow tree vs a redwood tree] There is nothing for the difference between the trees. (Avelyn Mac Uilliam, 6/99 p. 9)
[a heart vs a seeblatt] We give no difference between a heart and a seeblatt. (Aíne inghean Cillín, 6/99 p. 13)
[A mullet of eight points vs. an estoile of four greater and four lesser points] [There is one CD] for the difference between an estoile and a mullet. (Sorcha MacLeod, 6/96 symposium p. 1)
[A zule vs. a chess rook] ...in period they were not considered the same charge, and there is no real visual similarity, [so] there is a CD between the two. (Anas ibn Haroun Abd al-Zaki, 7/96 p. 1)
[registering two unicorn's heads couped and a pegasus' head couped at the shoulder] Since the unicorn heads are correctly drawn, with horns and beards, and since adding wings to a charge is general[ly] worth a CD, this does not violate our ban on similar yet unlike charges (the sword and dagger rule). (Linette Marie Armellini d'Addabbo, 7/96 p. 6)
[Beasts courant vs. couchant] ...there is a CD between couchant and courant. (Cuan MacDaige, 7/96 p. 8)
[Sable semy-de-lys, an eagle Or vs. Sable, an eagle displayed...within an orle of fleurs-de-lys Or.] ...the difference between a semy-de-lys versus an orle of fleur[s]-de-lys does not, at least in this case, seem sufficient to provide a CD. (Deborah von Falkenhorst, 7/96 p. 17)
[A cross potent Or between four crosses couped argent vs. a cross of Jerusalem Or.] The Cross of Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does. There is one CD for the field, but there is nothing for changing the tincture of less than half the group. (Gregory Tobias Barre, 7/96 p. 18)
The reason for granting no difference for a tree vs. a tree eradicated is obvious if one considers the poor excuses for root systems found in many trees blazoned as eradicated. Without any period evidence that changing a tree couped to a tree eradicated was considered a cadency step, we see no reason to grant any difference between them. (Thurstan Ravensholme, 7/96 p. 18)
[A cross crosslet fleury vs. a cross couped and a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)
[A wyvern erect vs. a dragon segreant] There is...nothing for the difference between a wyvern erect and a dragon segreant. (Aelric of Battle, 7/96 p. 21)
[urdy vs. embattled] We are reaffirming the precedent established by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, in the LoAR of 7/92, "Urdy (or champaine) is a period line of division... After some thought, we decided we had to grant a CD between it and embattled." (Cristina of Carreg Wen, 9/96 p. 4)
[{color} a salamander Or enflamed proper vs a lizard Or] The submitter has drawn the salamander properly with small goutes of flame coming off it. Unfortunately, of the eight goutes of flame, five were solid gules, and three were solid Or. Therefore, if the goutes are significant enough to count for difference, this would have to be returned for breaking tincture. (Adina von der Heide, 9/96 p. 13)
[a gillyflower vs a sixteen-petalled chrysanthemum] After comparing the picture submitted and the picture in Laurel's books on Japanese mon, we felt that we could not grant a difference. (Deirdre de la Fleur, 9/96 p. 15)
[a natural dolphin haurient embowed vs a dolphin haurient] ...we are granting no difference between a [dolphin] haurient and haruient embowed. (Kiara O slevin of the White Hands, 9/96 p. 15)
[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)
[a Latin cross flory vs a cross of Santiago] There is nothing for the difference between a cross of Santiago and a Latin cross flory. (Bruinneach nic Thighearnain; 9/96 p. 18)
[crosses bottony fitchy vs Maltese crosses] There is a CD for changing the type of each of the three charges, but the change...is not substantial enough to invoke X.2. (Andro Bruce, 10/96 p. 9)
[A tower vs a chess-rook] There is...nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook. (Erich von Drachenholz, 10/96 p. 9)
[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)
[an eagle's foot vs an dragon's jamb inverted] Both emblazons showed approximately the same amount of claw and leg, and they looked quite similar in type. [No difference was given.] (Duncan Greifenklau, 10/96 p. 11)
[a duck close vs an eagle close] There is nothing for type of ... charges. (Jean le Confus, 11/96 p. 14)
[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)
[a trefoil vs a quatrefoil] After considering both of the badges, we could see no reason not to grant a CD between a trefoil and quatrefoil. (Allan of Moffat, 1/97 p. 6)
[a duck statant, wings elevated vs a dove and a falcon rising, wings addorsed and inverted] There is only one CD for change of bird [i.e. the change of type is significant but not substantial, and any change of posture is insignificant]. (Helvig Ulfsdotter, 1/97 p. 16)
[a cross formy fitchy vs a Maltese cross] There [is a CD] for the type of cross. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)
[a cross formy fitchy vs a cross formy fitchy throughout] In general there is a difference between an ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary throughout vs. its non-throughout version. Most types of crosses work more like non-ordinaries, but crosses formy are exceptional: in their throughout form they in many ways act as ordinaries. In particular both crosses and crosses formy are occasionally found overlying quartered arms, and crosses formy having flat ends merge into the edge of the shield. This may not apply to crosses in general, but in this instance there is the necessary second CD. (Seth Williamson of Exeter, 5/97 p. 3)
[a church bell vs. a hawk's bell] [There is a] CD for difference in type of the bells. (Helena O'Shea, 6/97 p. 6)
This submission raised the question whether, in period, a change between a secondary charge and a "peripheral" was or was not used to indicate cadency. ... In conclusion, it is obvious that substituting a peripheral for a non-peripheral secondary charge was certainly a period way to change the same base coat to show that two individuals are brothers. We consider that changing from one to the other is equivalent to adding either in terms of visual impact. Therefore, on the grounds period practice, SCA usage and visual impact we are returning this for conflict with [name] because only one CD exists for changing the type of secondary charge. [Editor's note: The full text of the return is approximately one page. Interested readers are referred to the Letter of Acceptances and Returns.] (Lete Bithespring, 6/97 p. 9)
[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)
[a phoenix argent rising from flames proper vs a phoenix argent] This is clear [with a CD] for changing the tincture of the flames from argent to proper. Just as we will give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings on a winged monster, so do we give one for changing the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Aoife nic Gillechomhghain, 9/97 p. 4)
[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)
[a tree vs a cedar tree][There is a CD] for the type of tree, since a Cedar tree is a fir tree, which is pointed, and in heraldry a generic tree is an oak tree, which is rounded. (Melisande de Frayne, 11/97 p. 6)
[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster. However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts. (Wolfger von Lausfenburg, 11/97 p. 10)
[a griffin vs a male griffin] [There is] one CD for the difference between a standard and a male griffin. (Aodhnait inghean mhic Chárthaigh, 11/97 p. 13)
[oak trees vs trees blasted] Precedent has been mixed, but there was in period a distinction between a tree and tree blasted. Therefore, we are ... granting a CD between a tree and a tree blasted, giving this submission the necessary second CD. (Wolfgang Schwarzwald, 2/98 p. 4)
[falcons rising wings addorsed respectant vs vultures combattant, wings elevanted and addorsed] This is clear... with one CD for type of primary charge and one for [a separate difference]. (Thorfinnr inn vegsvinni Ingason, 2/ 98 p. 11)
[birds rising, wings elevated and addorsed vs birds volant, wings addorsed] A possible conflict was called against Gavin Hawkins Per chevron embattled argent and vert, three hawks volant, wings addorsed, counterchanged. Since volant and rising are both period postures (albeit rare ones), and are visually distinct, we are willing to grant [a] CD for changes to the charges. (Alan of Gravesend 3/98 p. 6)
[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)
[a fireball Or flamed sable vs a fireball sable] There is a CD ... for the change of the coloration of the flames, since the flames are at least one half of the charge. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 5/98 p. 2)
The question was raised in commentary as to whether gyronny arrondy is a CD from plain gyronny. While a chief enarched does not count for difference against a plain chief, on a field division such as arrondy we are willing to give the necessary CD. (Ottar Hrafnsson, 5/98 p. 12)
[a portcullis vs a rastrillo] When [the rastrillo] was registered ... it was defined as a Spanish portcullis. Based on al-Jamal's research we are not sure if it is a portcullis; it seems likely that it is in fact a rake head. However, given that it is blazoned as a rastrillo in Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra we see no reason to change the blazon. However, we also see no reason not to give it a CD from a portcullis, since we are not sure what the charge is and the two charges do not look at all alike. (Iefan Colledig ap Dynfwal Abertawe, 8/98 p. 12)
[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)
Just as we give a CD for difference in the tincture of the wings of a flying monster, we give one for the difference in the tincture of the flames of a phoenix. (Eleanor of Leycestershyre, 10/98 p. 1)
[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)
[A cross crosslet fleury vs. a cross couped and a crux stellata] In both cases there is a CD between the crosses, but not a complete difference of charge. (William of Weir, 7/96 p. 19)
[cranes in their vigilance vs owls close] There is a CD for the difference in type between owls and cranes, but not substantial difference between the types of birds as required by RfS X.2. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)
[a bow vs a crossbow] given the enormous difference in shape between the two objects, we are willing to allow substantial difference of charge... (Giovanni dell'Arco, 11/96 p. 1)
This submission raised the question whether, in period, a change between a secondary charge and a "peripheral" was or was not used to indicate cadency. ... In conclusion, it is obvious that substituting a peripheral for a non-peripheral secondary charge was certainly a period way to change the same base coat to show that two individuals are brothers. We consider that changing from one to the other is equivalent to adding either in terms of visual impact. Therefore, on the grounds period practice, SCA usage and visual impact we are returning this for conflict with Julienne Dubarry because only one CD exists for changing the type of secondary charge. [Editor's note: The full text of the return is approximately one page. Interested readers are referred to the Letter of Acceptances and Returns.] (Lete Bithespring, 6/97 p. 9)
[a wolf vs a seadog] There is a CD between the two critters, but not substantial difference. (Llyr ap morgwn, 3/98 p. 22)
[a stump vs a tree blasted] There is, at best, a CD between a tree blasted and a stump, but not complete difference of charge. (Wilhelm Baumhecker, 8/98 p. 19)
[peacocks vs geese and vs martlets] In each case there is a CD between the birds but not complete difference of charge. (Eleanora Salutati, 9/98 p. 8)
[a Celtic cross vs a cross crosslet] There is a CD, but not substantial difference between the two types of crosses. (Ofelia le Fleming, 12/98 p. 12)
The question of the vajhra requires a look at several sections of the Rules for Submission. RfS VII.3 states: "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "period and domain of the Society" is clearly defined in RfS I.1: "The period the Society has been defined to extend until 1600 A.D. Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." Since the client's documentation shows vajhra in India before 1600 A.D., and since the Portuguese had significant contact with India prior to 1600, we reluctantly find the vajhra acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)
[registering colt's foot blossoms in profile] The submitted picture is extremely close to the drawing of colt's foot blossom's found in Gerard's Herbal (1633 edition), pg. 811. Given that the book was published in our "gray" area, colt's foot blossoms should be acceptable charges in the SCA. (Delphine du Dauphiné, 8/96 p. 4)
[returning a muffin cap] We can find no indication that a "muffin cap" has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have returned them for lacking it. (Christopher Thomas, 8/97 p. 16)
The Pictish dolphin beast falls in the same category as the unregisterable Norse twistie-beasties, Book of Kells beasts, etc. [The submission was returned.] (Scoithin mac Mhuireadhaigh, 8/97 p. 24)
[registering a wedge of Emmental cheese] There is a pattern of using foodstuff in medieval armory. ... This is the defining instance of the use of cheese in SCA armory, and in particular Emmental cheese. Emmental is the correct name for what is sold as Swiss cheese in the United States. It is a period cheese, which was sold in wheels and blocks. While we do not normally show objects in trian aspect, we see no problem with making the default wedge of cheese to be in trian aspect since it aids in identifiability, as in the case of dice or tabors. The default position of a wedge of cheese is hereby with the cut point to dexter (as if it were a spear or sword) and the rounded edge to sinister and the whole being more or less fesswise as if lying upon a table. The standard shape would be a wedge of about 30 to 60 degree angle, about twice as long as thick. (Michael Houlihan, 9/97 p. 1)
From now on since there is no evidence that new world flora and fauna were used in period armory, while they will still be permitted, using them will now be considered a weirdness. (Abigail of Lough Derravara, 9/97 p. 8)
[registering a tassel] A question was raised about the use of the tassel as a charge. While no documentation was presented for a tassel as an independent charge in period, there are undated references to it as a heraldic charge, and dated references to it as a period item. Therefore, with this registration, we are hereby allowing it for SCA registration as compatible with period style. (Sunara al Badawiyya, 2/ 98 p. 13)
Documentation has been presented for slugs in period. Furthermore, snails ... are found in period armory .... Therefore, a slug is at worst one step away from period practice. As with the snail, the slug has no limbs, so one can hardly blazon it as "statant", "passant", or whatever. [Apparently the documentation for slugs was not from heraldry.] (Justinian the Sluggard, 8/98 p. 9)
The submitter has appealed the previous return of his submission for using a non-period cross by providing a copy of a picture from Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry which shows a similar cross. However, he was only able to find the cross he wants in one place in Foster's, and Foster's is a 19th century redraw of medieval armory. And, Foster was not copying from medieval originals, but rather from 18th and 19th century editions of Renaissance copies of the medieval originals. Brault's redraw in Aspologia III shows a standard cross. [The submitter] also provided a copy of a period woodcut, showing a cross similar, but not identical to what he is submitting. Since the cross he is submitting is not the same as what is in the period woodcut, it does not help his case. Since we have used this woodcut for documentation in a different case to register the cross in the woodcut as an unblazoned variant of formy, if he resubmits drawing the cross to look like the one in the woodcut, barring any other problems, it should be acceptable. (Séamus Ó Cuileáin, 12/98 p. 15)
The question of the vajhra requires a look at several sections of the Rules for Submission. RfS VII.3 states: "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "period and domain of the Society" is clearly defined in RfS I.1: "The period the Society has been defined to extend until 1600 A.D. Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." Since the client's documentation shows vajhra in India before 1600 A.D., and since the Portuguese had significant contact with India prior to 1600, we reluctantly find the vajhra acceptable for SCA usage. (Kuji Ka Onimusashi, 7/96 p. 13)
[registering A stag springing Or charged with an ermine spot sable.] The submission raised the issue of a visual conflict [with]...[field] a stag rampant erminois. There is no visual conflict because of the difference in the fields. Visual conflict takes the whole submission into account as a visual whole. There are three technical CD's between these two submissions, one for field, one for tincture of the primary, and one for addition of the tertiary. (Montevale, Shire of, 8/96 p. 4)
[returning Argent, on a fess between four ermine spots sable, three and one... vs Ermine, on a fess...] Technically, there are two CD's between ermine and argent charged with four ermine spots. However, ermine can be drawn with only a few spots. Furthermore, if the spots were drawn large and in the form three, two and one, and a fess was put over the field, you could get a drawing that looked like this. (Francine de Ruen, 9/96 p. 14)
Estoile see Mullet & Estoile & Sun
Field Division see Line of Division
Fimbriation & Voiding, & Piercing
While there are some period exemplars of gouttes shaped like a modern tear drop, the majority of period evidence shows them to look much more like a thin drop with a wavy tail. Those gouttes are not voidable or eligible for X.4.a.ii. Therefore, effective the January 1997 Laurel meeting... gouttes will not be considered voidable charges, nor will they be eligible for X.4.a.ii. (Marie Elaine de Womwell, 8/96 p. 2)
[registering a fess vert fimbriated and cotised] Having fimbriation and cotising in the same tinctures is a definite weirdness, but since that is the only weirdness in the design, it is registerable. (Siobhan nic Eoin, 10/97 p. 6)
[returning per bend barry sable and Or and checky sable and Or ... a bend Or fimbriated ... gules] This is being returned for breaking the rule of tincture, by having a metal on a metal. The gules fimbriation lies entirely on sable on the checky side, and on an equally divided sable and Or field on the other, making the field the fimbriation lies on primarily sable. (Wolfker der Jäger, 10/97 p. 10)
[considering a lozenge voided of a keyhole] We will no longer, barring period evidence to the contrary ... permit voiding in any shape other than a simple geometric charge, or the charge itself, if the charge is simple enough to void. (Asa of the Wood, 11/97 p. 7)
Fimbriation of multiple ordinaries were found in period, as in the arms of Say, c. 1586 (Papworth 550), Per pale azure and gules, three chevrons counterchanged, fimbriated argent. (Rolanda Rossner, 12/98 p. 2)
While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated. (Alexander de Seton of Altavia, 4/99 p. 16)
[returning a chevron ... between three Latin crosses...fimbriated] This is being returned for the fimbriated crosses. According to RfS VIII.3 Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design. The crosses are not in the center of the design. (Michael die Zauberzunge von Essen, 4/99 p. 18)
[a fireball Or flamed sable vs a fireball sable] There is a CD ... for the change of the coloration of the flames, since the flames are at least one half of the charge. (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 5/98 p. 2)
[a natural dolphin haurient embowed vs a dolphin haurient] ...we are granting no difference between a [dolphin] haurient and haruient embowed. (Kiara O slevin of the White Hands, 9/96 p. 15)
The Pictish dolphin beast falls in the same category as the unregisterable Norse twistie-beasties, Book of Kells beasts, etc. [The submission was returned.] (Scoithin mac Mhuireadhaigh, 8/97 p. 24)
A question was raised about heraldic seahorses versus natural ones. Going through the files, and pulling most of what we have blazoned as a seahorse, natural seahorse, or hippocampus, we found out that a number of them were either misindexed, and/or misblazoned. Since we give a CD between the seahorse (the heraldic monster, half horse and half fish), and the natural seahorse (the fish), this could lead to problems. Additionally, some of the scribes were confused as to which one a hippocampus was, since it glosses both ways, depending on what source you use.
Therefore, we have reblazoned all the misblazons, and have substituted the term natural seahorse for hippocampus. As with all heraldic versus natural charges, the default is the heraldic item, so a seahorse is the monster, and the natural seahorse the fish. (Cover Letter 3/97)
[a dragon maintaining a charged pennoncelle] Charged banners are checked for conflict against already registered armory. The banner conflicts with... (Colin Tyndall de ffrayser, 5/99 p. 13)]
Flaunches see Ordinary
[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)
[registering colt's foot blossoms in profile] The submitted picture is extremely close to the drawing of colt's foot blossom's found in Gerard's Herbal (1633 edition), pg. 811. Given that the book was published in our "gray" area, colt's foot blossoms should be acceptable charges in the SCA. (Delphine du Dauphiné, 8/96 p. 4)
[a gillyflower vs a sixteen-petalled chrysanthemum] After comparing the picture submitted and the picture in Laurel's books on Japanese mon, we felt that we could not grant a difference. (Deirdre de la Fleur, 9/96 p. 15)
[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)
[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)
[fleurs-de-lys vs calla lillies] While it is clear fleurs-de-lys evolved from lilies, the majority of the evidence points to them as being considered difference charge in period. Therefore, we are giving the submitter the benefit of the doubt, and giving a CD between the calla lilies and the fleurs-de-lys. (Alina Silverthorne, 11/97 p. 3)
A periwinkle proper is very close in color both to purple and to blue; there is not a CD between it and either purpure or azure. (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/97 p. 14)
[a thistle Or vs a thistle sable, slipped and leaved Or] The slipping and leaving is the major part of a thistle, by which standard changing the blossom tincture alone is not be worth a CD. (Gavin MacGregor of Perth, 3/98 p. 21)
[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)
Rosebuds have been banned since November 1994. (Lasairfhíona ní Chon Chonnacht, 7/96 p. 20)
[returning A rose issuant from a comital coronet] The only mundane use of this arrangment would be as a crest. Numerous mundane examples of a crest issuing from a coronet sans torse are found in von Volborth's The Art of Heraldry... On the LoAR of 3/93 p. 26 Laurel ruled "The College does not register crests...This submission is a crest by virtue of its being set atop a torse." This case is similar and therefore is returned. (Julianna of Dunbar, 7/96 p. 21)
[a rose purpure slipped and leaved vert vs a periwinkle (Vince minor) proper] There is...nothing for the addition of the slipped and leaving. The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it. (Rosalyn MacGregor, 9/96 p. 17)
[a borage flower vs a rose] There is no heraldic difference between a borage flower and a rose... (Kiera nic an Bhaird, 11/96 p. 14)
We will no longer register Mamluk rosettes. They are an artistic motif which is not all that common even in period Mamluk art, never mind Mamluk heraldry. (Outlands, Kingdom of, 7/97 p. 21
We do not register rosebuds. [The submission was returned for this and another reason, with the statement that either was sufficient cause for return.] (Uilleam Nial McAndrew, 4/98 p. 19)
By combining rosebuds and roses the submission violates our "sword and dagger" rule, by using two variants of the same charge on the same piece of armory. Armory is used for identification. Using two variants of the same charge in the same piece of armory is visually confusing. [The submission was returned for this and another reason, with the statement that either was sufficient cause for return.] (Uilleam Nial McAndrew, 4/98 p. 19)
[roses vs dogwood blossoms] This conflicts with ... nothing for the difference between roses and dogwood blossoms. (David Cade, 10/98 p. 12)
[a trefoil vs a quatrefoil] After considering both of the badges, we could see no reason not to grant a CD between a trefoil and quatrefoil. (Allan of Moffat, 1/97 p. 6)
[a quatrefoil vs a cinquefoil] According to the LoAR of 9/90, page 16 "There is not really any visual difference between quatrefoils and cinquefoils." Regretfully, this is in conflict ... (Medwe Janos, 8/98 p. 21)
Proper for a pretzel is brown. {In these health conscious days we naturally leave it unsalted!} [editorial note: a pretzel properly has both salt and mustard.] (Marian of Edwinstowe, 7/96 p. 12)
[registering loaves of brown bread proper] Several issues were raised in this submission. Does bread come naturally in brown, does our policy on brown animals/objects proper cover bread, and is brown bread a metal or a color.
The submitting herald has provided documentation that brown bread is period, although bread in period did come in other colors. He has also shown a long standing SCA pattern of registering brown objects proper that could be found as brown in the middle ages (and frequently to this day). These include: many different animals; objects made from leather including shoes, boots, saddles, and book bindings, objects made from wood including harps, oars, and wooden drakkar prows, assorted plants including trees, flowers with stems, and cloves, and a baked food item, a pretzel proper.
While it is true that brown bread can come out of the oven in a tincture ranging from a light "golden" brown to almost black, the brown used on the forms were a deep brown, and we have no reason to believe that this submitter would not continue to use a real brown for the bread. (Gwenhwyvar Ywein, 7/97 p. 8)
[registering a wedge of Emmental cheese] There is a pattern of using foodstuff in medieval armory. ... This is the defining instance of the use of cheese in SCA armory, and in particular Emmental cheese. Emmental is the correct name for what is sold as Swiss cheese in the United States. It is a period cheese, which was sold in wheels and blocks. While we do not normally show objects in trian aspect, we see no problem with making the default wedge of cheese to be in trian aspect since it aids in identifiability, as in the case of dice or tabors. The default position of a wedge of cheese is hereby with the cut point to dexter (as if it were a spear or sword) and the rounded edge to sinister and the whole being more or less fesswise as if lying upon a table. The standard shape would be a wedge of about 30 to 60 degree angle, about twice as long as thick. (Michael Houlihan, 9/97 p. 1)
Foot see Leg
[a crutch vs a crutch fracted] This is clear ...with one CD for change of the color of the crutch and one for the fracting. (Aran Darkhelm, 1/98 p. 8)
[Azure fretty Or, a sword proper vs Azure fretty Or, a hare salient argent] The fret is the primary charge here, so the only change is the type of the secondary. (Calontir, Kingdom of, 10/96 p. 10)
Two issues were raised with this submission. First, whether in period fretty was combined with semy. Papworth, pg. 886 has a 1620 grant to Perbo of Vert semy-de-lis and fretty or and a chief ermine. On p.97 of the Oxford Guide to Heraldry there is an illustration of a 1508 grant to Sir Hugh Vaughn which uses as supporters griffins which are fretty and semy of roundels, and there is a roundel in every lozenge' formed by the fretty. And in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry under The Heraldic Atchievement [sic] of Francis Richard Grenville, 5th Earl of Warwick and Brooke", there is a quartering of fretty with fleurs-de-lys in every lozenge'.
The second issue involved the placement of the crosses on the field, since there was not one placed in every "lozenge" formed by the fretty. While placing them that way would be preferable, if there was no fretty on the field we would blazon the crosses as semy, so we see no reason not to do so in this instance. (Timotheos Vlastaris, 7/97 p. 12)
Gateway see Architecture
While there are some period exemplars of gouttes shaped like a modern tear drop, the majority of period evidence shows them to look much more like a thin drop with a wavy tail. Those gouttes are not voidable or eligible for X.4.a.ii. Therefore, effective the January 1997 Laurel meeting... gouttes will not be considered voidable charges, nor will they be eligible for X.4.a.ii. (Marie Elaine de Womwell, 8/96 p. 2)
The question was raised as to whom the grandfather clause covers. The grandfather clause extends to the submitters themselves and their immediate legal family (spouse, siblings, children (including their spouses), parents, grandparents and grandchildren). (Alexandra del Monte di Pieta, 1/98 p. 5)
[registering Order of the Greenwood Company] Note: Order of the Red Company is registered ... and therefore this usage is grandfathered to them. Normally we would not register a name with two designators. (Kingdom of the Middle, 2/98 p. 8)
The submitter's legal sibling, Simon de la Palma de Mallorca had the household name Drunken Archers registered to him 8/89. Therefore, the usage is grandfathered to her. (Drusilla of the Drunken Archers, 6/98 p. 10)
While this conflicts with [device]., since [her] previously registered device ... also conflicts to the same degree, she gets this badge courtesy of the grandfather clause. The Grandfather Clause applies to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if [she] may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell her she may not display the former. (Jennet of Tewkesbury, 7/98 p. 7)
While both the field (because she has it on her currently registered device) and the increscent double enarched (because there is one on her mother's badge) are grandfathered to the submitter, the combination is not necessarily grandfathered (Sarasi Candrah, 10/98 p. 12)
While it is true that the use of an annulet of flames is grandfathered to the group, what they have registered is a single tinctured annulet, not with two colors as with this. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, 12/98 p. 12)
While the byname should be put into the feminine form, the submitter is invoking the grandfather clause since her husband has the registered name Timothy der Kenntnisreich. Since the grandfather clause covers immediate family members, of which a wife is considered one, this name is registerable under our rules. (Katla der Kenntnisriech, 2/99 p. 1)
Groups see Charge Groups
[registering Gyronny of sixteen gules and Or, a Celtic cross azure] The question was raised regarding whether gyronny of sixteen is period, and whether it can be used in the SCA. Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, cites an instance from the 12th century, and Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, a German heraldic treatise shows a 16th century example... Given this, we will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but nothing more, barring period evidence. (Padric O Mullan, 6/99 p. 2)
[a dexter gauntlet clenched apaumy vs a dexter gauntlet appaumy] The clenching is an artistic detail which does not contribute difference. (William MacGregor, 5/98 p. 22)
We give no difference between a hand and a gauntlet... (Brian Brock, 5/99 p. 14)
[registering Inigena Rudraige Airenn] ...It was obvious from the dates on the paperwork that the submitter had submitted this more than two years ago, after consulting with Harpy. Furthermore, the submitter took one of the forms that Harpy suggested. Now, two years later, after the paperwork was held up in kingdom, the college has learned more, and the form submitted is probably not acceptable. However, since the hold up of the submission was not the fault of the submitter, we are registering this as a hardship case. (Inigena Rudraige Airenn, 9/96 p. 2)
returning a muffin cap] We can find no indication that a "muffin cap" has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have returned them for lacking it. (Christopher Thomas, 8/97 p. 16)
[a lamb's head cabossed vs. a ram's head cabossed] A lamb's head and a ram's head, both cabossed, are not [significantly] different. Unlike a stag's rack, the prominence of the ram's horns depends very much on the type of ram the artist depicts. If one of the varieties with less prominent horns which lie closer to the head is selected, the lambs ears and the ram's horns will not be as distinct. (Maritsa Milovich, 4/97 p. 15)
[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)
[returning a horse's skull] This is a resubmission of the same device which was returned November 1997 for a redraw because the horse's skull was unidentifiable. Unfortunately, it was the overwhelming conclusion of both the college and the people attending the roadshow where this was discussed that this is still unidentifiable, carefully drawn as it is. This compels us to the conclusion that the horse's skull does not have such clearly distinguishing features as to make it acceptably identifiable for heraldic use. The human skull used in Society and mundane heraldry is a clearly defined charge as immediately identifiable as a bend or a sword. (Consider how instantly children who have never taken an anatomy course identify it at Halloween!) The Society has extended definitions of skulls to certain beasts where there are secondary characteristics that clearly identify the type of head whence the skull derived. For instance, the ram's skull is identified by its distinctive horns, as are the elk's skull, the bull's skull, the deer's skull, etc. The few exceptions to that rule occurred almost twenty years ago, before standards for identifiability were so clearly defined. Even so, the major exception, the wolf's skull registered to Vargskol Halfblood passed in the confusion of the great Heraldicon of 1979, the source of many of the most solecistic items we see in the Armorial today. In judging this, we have to ask what features uniquely identify a horse's head from any other head and ask how clearly those transfer when the soft tissue is removed. Unfortunately, almost all of the features, except the length of the upper jaw, disappear entirely when head becomes skull. Therefore, the skull is not identifiable. (Dálkr Hálftroll Snjolfsson, 5/98 p. 21)
[an ox's head caboshed vs a bull's head caboshed] There is... [no difference] between an ox's head and a bull's head. (Vidar Oxenstierna, 2/99 p. 14)
[a single-headed chess knight vs a horse's head erased] The single-headed chess knight is not a period charge. Therefore difference is based on a visual comparison. The details of the chess knight's base are the only difference, and are too trivial to be significant. (AEthelmearc, Kingdom of, 5/99 p. 11)
[registering two unicorn's heads couped and a pegasus' head couped at the shoulder] Since the unicorn heads are correctly drawn, with horns and beards, and since adding wings to a charge is general[ly] worth a CD, this does not violate our ban on similar yet unlike charges (the sword and dagger rule). (Linette Marie Armellini d'Addabbo, 7/96 p. 6)
[a unicorn's head argent collared gules vs. a unicorn's head argent] [A] CD comes from the addition of the collar, which is treated effectively as a tertiary. (Isabella d'Hiver, 7/97 p. 8)
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 .... (Barony of Skraeling Althing, 5/98 p. 26)
While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated. (Alexander de Seton of Altavia, 4/99 p. 16)
[a heart vs a seeblatt] We give no difference between a heart and a seeblatt. (Aíne inghean Cillín, 6/99 p. 13)
[a bear antlered vs a bear] This conflicts... While there is a prior precedent granting a CD (for rabbits), in the case of Donata Ivanovna Basistova, May, 1995); the LoAR stated that visually the antlers were similar to adding wings. This is not the case here. Furthermore, adding wings is a period practice so could be considered a valid form of cadency. It is extremely rare to see beasts with added horns like this in period armory. Therefore both historically (barring evidence to the contrary) and visually adding the attires is not worth a CD. (Sean Donald of Caithness, 2/98 p. 15)
[a ram's head cabossed sable vs a ram's head caboshed sable armed Or] There is ... nothing for the change in the color of the horns. (Magnus Jager, 3/98 p. 16)
We don't register rampant humans or humanoids. (Rosalind O'Maughan, 9/97 p. 22)
Identifiability & Reproducibility
As drawn the "wyverns," which lack legs, blur the line between wyverns and pithons. There was no consensus at the Laurel meeting as whether these were wyverns or pithons. Therefore this is being returned for a redraw, to be draw clearly as one or the other. (Eibhlín ní Chaoimh, 8/96 p. 9)
The sphynx as drawn seems halfway between that of an Egyptian and a Grecian sphynx, and blurs the line between them. This is therefore being returned for a redraw as one or the other. (Gregor Vörös, 8/96 p. 11)
[returning a charge blazoned as a man's head cabossed crined and bearded of leaves] This is being returned for non-reproducability. If the submitter had drawn what was blazoned we would consider registering it. However, the blazon does not adequately describe the emblazon. While the head could be described as bearded of leaves, we could come up with no heraldic way to describe the hair - crined of leaves does not describe it. (Shane McNeil de la Forest, 9/96 p. 13)
This is being returned for a redraw. The chief is too small and resembles a very thin label. (Eckhardt zu Westfilde, 9/96 p. 14)
[registering a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm] This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory [cited from 1584]. On a case by case basis, if the charge can be documented as period, and be blazoned in a manner such that we can reproduce the emblazon accurately, we will register charge from cipher heraldry. (Antek Ignatovich, 2/97 p. 7)
Calico cats come in a variety of different patterns and color combinations so there is no way to accurately reproduce this emblazon. (Catherine of Gordonhall, 2/97 p. 19)
The posture volant affronty has been ruled unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable". While in those case the returns involved birds, we feel that the case is just as strong for monsters. [This return was of a demi-pegasus.] (Adeladie Ehrhardt, 2/98 p. 18)
[registering a tricorporate ladybug] While not good style, there are period exemplars of different tricorporate animals including a tricorporate fish; therefore, this is only one step from period practice. (Kerttu Katariinantytär Roisko, 7/97 p. 8)
Some questions were raised as to whether a cockroach was patently offensive, since a semy of cockroaches were previously returned in the proposed arms for The Canton of the Whyte Wey as being patently offensive, and if cockroaches or insects similar to them were used in period armory. The majority of the commenters and Laurel find no problem with a single cockroach. As for its use in period, in Martin Schrot's Wappenbuch, printed in 1581 (a period German heraldic text) shows the arms of Echlkivice (if we are reading the black letter font correctly) as Field, a beetle bendwise. Therefore we feel that a cockroach is a registerable charge. (Skallagormr Berserkr, 12/98 p. 9)
[considering a lozenge voided of a keyhole] We will no longer, barring period evidence to the contrary, register keyholes. (Asa of the Wood, 11/97 p. 7)
[banning the Donnelly knot] While we have registered the charge here...effectively with the February 1997 Laurel meeting, Donnelly knots will no longer acceptable for registration in SCA heraldry. (Edana O'Donnelly, 9/96 p. 9)
[a weaver's knot vs a bourchier knot] There is not enough visual distinction between having the lower ends crossed (weaver's) and having them knotted (Bourchier) to be worth a CD. Since the weaver's knot was not used in mundane heraldry, there is also no period heraldic distinction on which to base a CD. (Annabel Kincaid, 1/98 p. 18)
Laurel Wreath see Wreath
[returning a brown oak leave proper]This is an unwarranted extension of the concept of "brown {charges} proper". This usage applies to charges which, in their natural state, would reasonably be assumed to be brown. These include objects made of leather or wood. Most animals are included as well, unless there is some obvious other natural coloration.
The question is not whether the charge could reasonably be found in nature as brown, nor if it is the only possible color. The criterion is whether, absent any further information, brown is the obvious choice. This is consistent with period heraldry's use of brown animals and inanimate objects. The word "brown" is often included in the blazon, but this is merely for clarity's sake and does not seem to be a feature of period blazons. A good test is if it is actually necessary for an accurate reproduction.
A leaf does not fall within this criterion. A reader would most likely interpret "a leaf proper" as being green. The inclusion of "brown" in the blazon is necessary for the emblazon. In the absence of any specific documentation of brown leaves in period heraldry, this must be returned. (Thorvald Ingvarsson, 3/98 p. 23)
The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules., and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided used difference tincture classes for each half of the field.
This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the SCA with tinctures from the different classes. (Kathern Thomas Gyelle Spence, 10/98 p. 12)
[an eagle's foot vs an dragon's jamb inverted] Both emblazons showed approximately the same amount of claw and leg, and they looked quite similar in type. [No difference was given.] (Duncan Greifenklau, 10/96 p. 11)
We give no difference between an eagle's jamb and a dragon's jamb. [However] the default for a dragon's jamb is claws up and the default for an eagle's jamb is claw's down.... (Barony of One Thousand Eyes, 4/98 p. 19)
[a boot vs a leg] We grant no difference between a [human] leg and a boot (Leonore of Black Diamond, 2/99 p. 17)
While the lightning bolts were used in period armory, they were only used as part of a thunderbolt, and not as independent elements on their own. [The submission was returned for this being one of two weirdnesses.] (Daria of Stormhaven, 4/99 p. 16)