François's Draft Armory Precedents

Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms

The Tenure of Master François la Flamme

Last Revised: 14 July 2006
Period Covered: 08/01 -- 03/04

These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of Master François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms. During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Dame Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath Queen of Arms. Please verify all precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. There is an index. The index for the text version of these precedents is more detailed than for the on-line version. Other than that, the two version are identical.

If a charge is only referenced once in these precedents (and doesn't fall into a category such as BEAST -- Miscellaneous), it will be found under CHARGE -- Miscellaneous. A complete listing of these charges in found in the index. These charges are not currently cross-referenced in the index.

The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained). These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. A list of the owners is found in the index. The category "Mundane Armory" contains a list of real-world armory that has been ruled not important enough to protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory.

These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the precedents are arranged in chronological order.

The following heralds are referred to by title: al-Jamal (Da'ud ibn Auda), Argent Snail (Jaelle of Armida), Brachet (Frederick of Holland), Clarion (Elsbeth Anne Roth), Crescent (Dietmar von Straubing), Eastern Crown (Tanczos Istvan), Kraken (Evan da Collaureo), Laurel Clerk (Daniel de Lincolia), Lions Blood (Teceangl Bach), Nebuly (Walraven van Nijmegen), Palimpsest (Rouland Carre), Pelican (Mari Elspeth nic Bryan), Rampart (Pendar the Bard), and Red Hawk (Gotfridus von Schwaben)

Table of Contents (Armory)

ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting
ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
AMPHIBIAN
ANNULET
ARCHITECTURE
ARRANGEMENT
ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined
ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move
ARROW and ARROWHEAD
ARTHROPOD -- Bee
ARTHROPOD -- Miscellaneous
ARTHROPOD -- Spider
AUGMENTATIONS
AXE
BALANCE
BASE
BEAST -- Badger
BEAST -- Bat
BEAST -- Bear
BEAST -- Beaver
BEAST -- Boar
BEAST -- Cat, Lion and Tiger
BEAST -- Deer
BEAST -- Dog and Wolf
BEAST -- Elephant
BEAST -- General
BEAST -- Goat
BEAST -- Miscellaneous
BEAST -- Mouse
BEAST -- Rabbit
BEAST -- Weasel
BEND and BEND SINISTER
BIRD -- Cock and Hen
BIRD -- Corbie see BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Cornish Chough
BIRD -- Dove
BIRD -- Duck
BIRD -- Eagle
BIRD -- Falcon and Hawk
BIRD -- Generic
BIRD -- Goose
BIRD -- Loon
BIRD -- Martlet
BIRD -- Miscellaneous
BIRD -- Owl
BIRD -- Peacock
BIRD -- Quail
BIRD -- Raven
BIRD -- Ravens and Similar Birds
BIRD -- Sparrow
BIRD -- Swan
BIRD -- Vulture
BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE see also APPENDIX A -- Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry
BLAZON
BOOK
BORDURE
CANDELABRA
CANTING
CARD PIQUE
CASTLE and TOWER
CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
CHARGE -- Miscellaneous
CHARGE -- Overall
CHARGE -- Peripheral
CHARGE -- Restricted or Reserved
CHARGE GROUP
CHESS PIECE
CHEVRON and CHEVRON INVERTED
CHIEF
COLLAR
COMET
COMPASS STAR and SUN
COMPLEXITY
CONTRAST
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
CORONET and CROWN
COTISES
COUNTERCHANGING
COUPED and ERASED
COUPED and THROUGHOUT
CRESCENT
CROSS
CROSSBOW and BOW
CUP and CHALICE
DEFAULTS
DELF
DICE
DIFFERENCE -- Substantial
DIFFERENCE -- Groups
DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTION
DOLPHIN see FISH and DOLPHIN
DROP SPINDLE
EMBLAZON
EMBLAZON -- Coloring Problems
ENFILE
ERASED and COUPED see COUPED and ERASED
ERMINE see FUR
ERMINE SPOT
ESCARBUNCLE
ESTOILE
FEATHER
FESS and BAR
FIELD DIVISION -- Barry
FIELD DIVISION -- Bendy and Bendy Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Chapé
FIELD DIVISION -- Checky and Party of Six
FIELD DIVISION -- Chevronelly
FIELD DIVISION -- Gyronny
FIELD DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
FIELD DIVISION -- Paly
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Bend and Per Bend Sinister
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Chevron and Per Chevron Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Fess
FIELD DIVISION -- Per Pall and Per Pall Inverted
FIELD DIVISION -- Quarterly
FIELD DIVISION -- Vêtu
FIELD PRIMARY ARMORY
FIELD TREATMENT -- Ermined see FUR
FIELD TREATMENT -- Honeycombed
FIELD TREATMENT -- Mailly and Other Field Treatments
FIELD TREATMENT -- Masoned
FIELD TREATMENT -- Miscellaneous
FIELD TREATMENT -- Semy see SEMY
FIELDLESS
FIMBRIATED and VOIDED CHARGES
FISH and DOLPHIN
FLAG and BANNER
FLAMES and FIRE
FLAUNCH see TIERCE and FLAUNCH
FLEUR-DE-LYS
FLOWER -- Lily
FLOWER -- Miscellaneous
FLOWER -- Rose
FLOWER -- Thistle
FLOWER -- Trillium
FLOWER -- Tulip
FOIL
FRET and FRETTY
FRUIT
FUR
GOUTTE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
GRENADE and FIREBALL
GURGES
HAND and GAUNTLET
HAT
HEAD -- Beast see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Bird see also COUPED and ERASED
HEAD -- Human
HEAD -- Monster
HEART
HELM and HELMET
HUMAN
IDENTIFIABILITY
JAPANESE MON and CHARGES
KNOTS
LABEL
LEAF
LEG and JAMBE
LIGHTNING BOLT
LINES of DIVISION -- Jagged
LINES of DIVISION -- Long
LINES of DIVISION -- Miscellaneous
LINES of DIVISION -- Square
LINES of DIVISION -- Wavy
LOCATION see POSITION
LOZENGE
MAUNCH
MOLLUSK -- Snail
MONSTER -- Chimera
MONSTER -- Dragon and Wyvern
MONSTER -- Griffin
MONSTER -- Humanoid
MONSTER -- Merfolk
MONSTER -- Miscellaneous
MONSTER -- Panther
MONSTER -- Pegasus
MONSTER -- Phoenix
MONSTER -- Pithon
MONSTER -- Sea
MONSTER -- Winged
MOUNT and MOUNTAIN
MULLET
MUNDANE ARMORY
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
NESSELBLATT
OBTRUSIVE MODERNITY
OFFENSE
ORIENTATION see POSTURE categories
ORLE see CHARGE -- Peripheral
PALE
PALL and PALL INVERTED
Period Rolls of Arms and Armorials (discussion)
PIERCED
PILE and PILE INVERTED
PLANT
POSITION
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Animate Charges
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- General
POSTURE/ORIENTATION -- Inanimate Charges
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION
PRETENSE or PRESUMPTION -- Crests and Supporters
PROPER see also PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROPER -- Brown Precedent
PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS
RAINBOW
RECONSTRUCTIBILITY
REPTILE -- Lizard
REPTILE -- Snake
RfS X.4.j.ii
ROGACINA
ROUNDEL
SALTIRE
SCHNECKE
SEMY
SHAKEFORK see PALL and PALL INVERTED
SHEAF
SHELL
SHIP
STAFF
STYLE
SUN see COMPASS STAR and SUN
SUSTAINED see MAINTAINED and SUSTAINED
SWORD
SYMBOL
TIERCE and FLAUNCH
TINCTURE
TOOL -- Astronomical
TOOL -- Textile
TRADEMARK see COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK
TREE
TREE BRANCH
TRIDENT
TRIQUETRA
TRISKELE and TRISKELION
TROUSERS of NOBILITY
VISUAL COMPARISON
WEIRDNESS
WINGED OBJECTS
WINGS and VOLS
WREATH

ADMINISTRATIVE
see also PROTECTED and PROTECTABLE ITEMS

An interesting conflict question arose this month, reminding us of the following precedent (still pertinent) from the cover letter of the March 1993 LoAR:

Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

[Magdalena Leonardi, 08/01, A-Drachenwald]

[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys MacLachlan, 09/01, R-Caid]

Unfortunately, the College can only register the emblazons it receives, and we only received the emblazon for the augmented device. Since we have no emblazon received for the unaugmented device, it cannot be registered at this time. That would be akin to making a "holding device", which is not acceptable by College of Arms policy. [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/01, R-Middle]

Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/01, R-Meridies]

Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys Huet's, found later in this LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and therefore, her submission takes precedence and may be registered without a letter of permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be surprised by these events, as she has provided a letter of permission to conflict to Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick, 11/01, A-Caid]

[reinstatement of released device as badge] The LoI provided no evidence that the release of the bat-winged cat device, on registration of her 1981 device change, was in error, nor did the LoI present evidence of hardship. There was no directive in the 1981 LoI, on the device change form, or in other paperwork in Laurel files, asking that Laurel preserve the previously registered device as a badge. Standard procedure under the then-applicable 1979 rules for submission (like today) was to release an old device if the device were changed, unless the submitter requested that it be kept as a badge. In this submitter's previous device change attempt in 1980 (returned at Laurel), the LoI indicated that the previous device (the bat-winged cat device) should be maintained as a badge. However, it has never been College of Arms policy to assume that such directives from one Letter of Intent carry through to another Letter of Intent. Laurel notes that the submitter was heraldically active in the SCA after the badge was released, as the files show heraldic actions from her through 1983. Therefore there is no clear evidence of a hardship existing by which she might not have been informed that the previous device was released. Laurel Sovereign of Arms would remind everyone that decisions are made based on the information provided on the forms, in the LoI, and in the comments provided by the College. Therefore, we must hold by non scripta, non est: if it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist. [Su of the Silver Horn, 11/01, R-Caid]

No petition of support was provided for this augmentation. Since the augmentation modifies the branch arms, a petition of support is required. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/01, R-Middle]

The device must also be returned for administrative reasons. The petition does not include a blazon or emblazon of the arms being supported. As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported by the petition. That description, in an SCA armorial petition, would ideally be a statement that We, the members of (Branch) support this device for our branch device, accompanied with a colored emblazon and a blazon. Such a petition makes it clear that all the signatories, including the blazon-illiterate signatories, understand the design being so submitted. A line drawing of the emblazon combined with the blazon (and some text describing the colors for the blazon-illiterate) is just as good as a colored emblazon. A blazon on the petition without an emblazon will suffice, as long as the blazon is an accurate representation of the emblazon. If that is not the case, then the petition will not be acceptable. [Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[Device appeal] There were other procedural problems with the submission. According to the Administrative Handbook section IV.C.1: Appropriate forms must be included for all submissions, including appeals, resubmissions, name and blazon changes, etc. No forms were sent. There was no mini-emblazon on the letter of intent. The Administrative Handbook section V.B.2.e states: An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent. Such emblazons must be clearly labeled and large enough that all elements of the design may be clearly distinguished. [Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] ... by current precedent, another CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted.

Note that the precedent giving a CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted is under discussion this month (see the cover letter). However, there is no need to pend this submission until the completion of a general policy discussion: it may be registered now under current SCA policy. Should the policy change as a result of the ongoing research and discussion, it will apply to those submissions received after the policy change. [David of Caithness, 12/01, A-Caid] [Ed.: CD granted between a pall inverted and a shakefork inverted as of 08/02 (see below)]

The device submission used wax-based crayons for the colors on the form. This resulted in a very brownish Or, and was almost a reason for return. Please do not use wax-based crayons on forms: the colors do not always stay true, the metallics fade particularly quickly, and wax crayons have been known to melt and stick to other items in the forms file or binder. The administrative handbook suggests Crayola Classic markers in the General Procedures section (AH IV.C.1): "The preferred medium for colored armory sets is to use watercolor markers such as Crayola Classic Markers. Any form of neon or pastel markers or pencils are inappropriate for the colored armory sets". [Oddr ölfúss the Tanner, 01/02, A-Atenveldt]

The submission form has been altered from the standard West Kingdom form and omits the check boxes which allow the submitter to specify the disposition of her previous armory. Therefore her previous device ... is released, which is the default action. Please note that the check boxes on the submissions forms, which should be standard throughout all kingdoms, are not supposed to be altered. Valuable information may be lost by altering the forms. In some cases, alterations to the forms may be extreme enough to cause return of the submission, although that is not necessary in this case. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/02, A-West]

The "Or" tincture is colored in a distinct orange color, which is not a valid variant of Or. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin, 01/02, R-Caid]

[a Norse serpent] The Norse serpent was declared an unregisterable charge in the LoAR of May 1998, effective in October of that year. This submitter had a submission in kingdom using this charge before that deadine occurred, and no resubmission was received at Laurel level until after the deadline occurred. However, convincing evidence has been presented by the Ansteorran College that there were significant administrative problems with the submitter's local and (to a lesser extent) regional and kingdom heralds during the period of time in which he could have put in timely submission of this device. While there is no paperwork proof that the armory was resubmitted in a timely fashion, it has also been demonstrated that much paperwork was lost by the pertinent heralds during the time in which such a resubmission might have occurred. Kingdom heralds have stated that the submitter did indeed attempt to resubmit in a timely fashion. It therefore seems reasonable to give this submitter the benefit of the doubt and allow him the use of this charge under the hardship clause, as noted in the Glossary of Terms:

It sometimes happens that a submission is delayed so long by circumstances outside the submitter's control that changes in the Rules for Submissions or their interpretation make it unregisterable. Depending on the exact circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis, the submission may be judged according to the older Rules for Submissions and interpretations; this policy is popularly known as the Hardship Clause.

[Johann Gunnbjornsson, 02/02, A-Ansteorra]

[Gules, three axes argent] This is clear of conflict with Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gules, two axes addorsed argent hafted proper (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for changing the number of axes. The question was raised whether there is a second CD for changing the orientation of one of Wolfram's axes. If one looks at Wolfram's arms and counts the orientation change before the number change then one half of the group is changed and there is a CD for it. If one counts the number change first then only one of three charges has changed orientation and so no CD is granted. (A similar analysis can be made moving in the other direction, from Sefferey's submission to Wolfram's arms.)

The Rules for Submission give no indication that one class of change is to be considered before another. Precedent superficially appears to favor the less generous reading. As Palimpsest noted, "Consider the return of the submission of Leonia Dubarry in the January, 1993 LoAR. This compared three charges 2&1 vs in chief two charges. Laurel wrote in part, 'To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field, because two charges can't be 2&1' While it is true that two charges can't be 2&1, it is also true that three charges can be in chief. This leaves the implication that the less generous interpretation prevails." Consulting the 1993 text, however, shows that Laurel also adduced examples of the change from three charges 2 & 1 to two charges in chief being used as a cadency step in period. These examples of cadency forced Laurel to apply the less generous interpretation. In Sefferey's case, there is no reason to believe that the change from two axes addorsed to three axes all with blades to dexter is but one cadency step. Therefore we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt and grant the second CD. [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/02, A-Meridies]

[Badge for Thrown Weapons Deputy] This badge is for a deputy for the marshallate in charge of thrown weapons. Precedent is mixed about whether deputies to major offices may have Kingdom badges assigned to them, or whether they must use a corporate level badge. The Sovereigns of Arms and Laurel Clerk discussed the issue, and Laurel determined the following: A combat marshal must be quickly identifiable on the field during inter-kingdom wars. Thus, it is important that the badges for marshals should be the same throughout the Society. Such badges should therefore be registered at the corporate level, rather than the kingdom level. This is currently the case for the Equestrian Marshallate, whose badge was registered at the Society level as Sable, two tilting lances in saltire and in chief a chamfron Or. [An Tir, Kingdom of, 02/02, R-An Tir]

Both Dafydd and Maridonna are SCA members, so the item on the earliest dated Letter of Intent takes precedence, and the Outlands letter predated the Meridies letter. [Maridonna Benvenuti, 02/02, R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for conflict with Dafydd]

From Laurel: Similar in the geometric sense: mini-emblazons, that is

In the last few months, there have been cases where the mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be used with care. Many complaints have been received about mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise unidentifiable. [04/02, CL]

The submitter did not check any boxes on the form indicating the disposition of his previous device, Ermine, a fox rampant contourny gules maintaining in dexter forepaw a rapier sable, a bordure sable semy-de-lys Or. It is therefore released by default, per the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.7, "Instructions for Disposition of Changed Items". [Balthasar Yvon Charon, 04/02, A-An Tir]

[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath vert] The device must be returned for lack of a name to which to register it. The armory had an additional problem which would not allow it to be accepted. Laurel wreaths should not be drawn with another charge between the tips of the wreath, except possibly when the charge between the tips is very thin. "[A laurel wreath and in chief a roundel] Second, the laurel wreath is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not have sufficient room between its tips to place another charge"(LoAR 2/00). [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 04/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Transfer of name and device to Daniel del Cavallo] This is a posthumous transfer. The Laurel office was provided with (1) a copy of Caterina's real-world will, (2) a letter from Caterina's legal heir transferring Caterina's name and device to Daniel del Cavallo, and (3) a letter from Daniel accepting transfer of Caterina's name and device.

We suggest that all people with registered armory consider writing an explicit heraldic will. Directions on how to create and file a heraldic will are in the newest Administrative Handbook section IV.F with a template for the will itself in Appendix D. This newest version of the Administrative Handbook is available on-line at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/admin.html as well as from the usual print sources. [Caterina del Cavallo, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

According to the September 2001 LoAR, "We do not have a similar period pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on various tessellations. Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer be registerable in the SCA." Therefore, this motif is no longer registerable.

Rampart expressed concern that this ruling was not available at the time the Letter of Intent was issued, possibly due in part to a misconception that the ruling was on the November 2001 LoAR, rather than the September 2001 LoAR. The cover letter for the LoAR of September 2001 is dated December 12, 2001, and the LoAR was mailed within a day or two of December 10 (the date that Master Symond, who is kind enough to do our mailings, received the LoAR). The decision was therefore available for a full month before the January 17, 2002, Letter of Intent upon which this submission was forwarded to Laurel.

Pelican and Wreath expect that submissions heralds will be aware of all rulings up to and including those made in LoARs which were mailed during the month before the date of a Letter of Intent. Standard College of Arms policy schedules the grace period for disallowed practices (when such grace periods are implemented as part of the Laurel decision) so that decisions may be made at kingdom based on the LoAR issued the month previous to the submission at hand. The grace period is not scheduled to cover items which were in submission in a kingdom Internal Letter of Intent, in the hands of a local consulting herald, or earlier in the consultation and submission process. Some pertinent precedents showing this timeline, or a slightly tighter timeline (depending on the postmark date for the LoARs in question) are:

No evidence was presented that a roundel enchancré is a period charge. Therefore, barring period evidence of its usage, after the July 1997 Laurel meeting we will no longer register it. (LoAR March 1997 p. 2) [note: deadline set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before March 1997, when the decision was published]

Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL for November 1994) [note: again, the deadline is set so that it will cover all LoIs issued on or before the Cover Letter date of November 1994.]

Please note that not all disallowed practices are given a grace period before they are disallowed. The institution of a grace period for a disallowed practice is at the discretion of the Sovereigns of Arms. [Gauvain Eisenbein, 05/02, R-Outlands]

The College should note that a grace period when a new policy is implemented is not required by Laurel policy, but is implemented at the discretion of Laurel and the pertinent Sovereigns of Arms. The wording of the December 2001 Cover Letter on this issue was interpreted by some to mean that a grace period was required. This is not so. A grace period did seem to be appropriate in the case of this submission. [Gwenllian de Castell Coch, 06/02, A-Artemisia]

[(Fieldless) A tankard argent] Conflict with Giles MacManus, registered in the Atlantian section of this LoAR, Per bend sinister sable and gules, a tankard argent. There is only one CD, for fieldlessness.

The cover letter for the March 1993 LoAR (dated 8 May 1993) stated:

At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.

This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status. Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the College.

This policy has not been rescinded. It has been upheld a number of times since:

Since both submissions were from the same month, we followed the strictures from the Board which meant that we had to determine the membership status of the two submitters, since if one was a member and one was not, the member would get priority (LoAR September 1996).

According to the registry, both submitters were members in August 2001, and thus priority is determined by the date on the LoI (LoAR August 2001).

Wreath therefore telephoned the registry. The registry indicated that Giles MacManus's membership was current at the time of the Wreath meeting, and that Caterina had not been a member since March 2000. Since the armory of a member takes precedence over armory of non-members, Giles's armory takes precedence. [Caterina Amiranda della Quercia, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen, 07/02, R-Atenveldt]

The pile here is drawn with the pile issuing from the upper corners of the shield. This is different from the mini-emblazon. Since the full-sized emblazon is the final arbiter of the drawing, this must be returned. To quote from one of the more recent of the many rulings on the topic, "The pile is not drawn properly; a pile should not issue from the corners of the shield, but from farther in on the chief. As the pile also does not extend to base, it cannot be reblazoned as a chaussé field" (LoAR July 2000). [Michael of Ravenskeep, 07/02, R-Outlands]

[acceptance of transfer] The Letter of Intent stated, "The e-mail requesting transfer, and Their Majesties' e-mail accepting transfer, are attached to the submission form". General Laurel policy has been explicit in indicating that official correspondence should be signed and that, while a scanned copy of a signed document is acceptable, e-mail is not. While the section of the Administrative Handbook dealing with transfers does not explicitly reiterate the requirement for a signature, Laurel has stated that a signature is needed in this case as well. The kingdom and Mistress Iduna have provided the College with signed transfer paperwork, so the transfer may be effected.

The LoI noted that this badge was intended to be used by the officer known as the Keeper of the Kingdom Directory. Per Laurel, "The Directory Keeper is listed on the Artemisia web page as a deputy of the Chronicler." Badges may not be registered for officers (including deputy officers) if a kingdom or corporate level badge for that position exists. In November 1980, a badge was registered for the Chronicler of the Society for Creative Anachronism: Per pale sable and argent, two quills conjoined in pile counterchanged, a chief gules. We have dropped the intended designator in order to register this badge to the Kingdom of Artemisia. [Artemisia, Kingdom of, 10/02, A-Artemisia]

The shire's petition does not show support for this device. The petition does not contain a blazon, or any indication of tincture. The small line drawing emblazon does not show any charges on the chief. In addition, the laurel wreath is depicted on the petition as two curved lines making the bottom part of a semicircle with an 'x' at the bottom. This could only be viewed as a stylized laurel wreath with great charity. Because the petition needs to be reissued, when it is reissued, the depiction of the laurel wreath on the petition should match the wreath on the device. [Tir Briste, Shire of, 11/02, R-Meridies]

This submission also has administrative problems. It was submitted as a new device for the alternate persona, on a device form. A submitter may only have one device, and Cynuise already has a registered device, Argent, a griffin passant to sinister vert within a bordure rayonny sable. A submitter may designate secondary armory for the use of an alternate persona, but the secondary armory should be submitted on a badge form and should be designated as a badge instead of a device. Please advise the submitter, on resubmission, to submit appropriately on a badge or device form. If submitting on a device form, the form should indicate that the submission is a device change and should also indicate whether the previous device should be retained as a badge or released. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/02, R-Trimaris]

[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually distinguished from each other.

Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no more than a minor point of difference between the cross of conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/02, A-Ealdormere]

The Letter of Intent stated that this badge was intended for the joint use of the Barony of Concordia of the Snows and the Shire of Bergental. The Administrative Handbook only allows joint registration by two individuals - branches may not participate in a joint registration. To quote from section II.D.3, "Badges may be registered by an individual, by two individuals jointly, or by a Society branch." There is no administrative ambiguity about which branch should be registering this badge, as the paperwork received by the Laurel office only refers to the Barony of Concordia of the Snows, with no reference to the Shire of Bergental. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 01/03, A-East]

[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross patonce.

SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname. He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).

In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the research is being used to elaborate on some initial information that is also English.

The first, and most important question to ask, is whether changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward, as seen in the various sources cited above, where different branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more common types of cadency change in period - much more common than cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency change.

Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

In all the cases above, the analysis should consider the source material and remove any erroneous material.

We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends, cantons, and chevrons.

We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony" variants in Glover's Ordinary.

We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our researches in this area were not particularly compelling.

Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and "patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton, Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and "patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.

Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt West Seaxe, 02/03, A-Caid]

Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis available to us at this time, it is our understanding that ..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this and word statements of current knowledge as if they were Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as well to insert the disclaimer.

We require your help to know "the truth". The current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/03, CL]

The badge is transferred from the Principality of Northshield. As an administrative note, both parts of the transfer (the sending from Northshield and the reception by Moraig) should be separate items on the Letter of Intent. [Moraig Ann Drummond, 04/03, A-Middle]

We apologize to the submitter for not mentioning this conflict at the time of the previous return, but the College of Arms did not bring it to our attention at that time. The Laurel office has been known to give the benefit of the doubt to a submission when a possible problem was not mentioned in the previous return, but was present in the previous submission and was clearly visible to Laurel when viewing the submission. Such a "clearly visible" problem could include possible problems with the artwork of the submission or the general heraldic style of the submission. Unmentioned conflicts are not clearly visible to Laurel and thus do not fall into this category. [Charles the Grey of Mooneschadowe, 06/03, R-Ansteorra]

Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this armorial style problem. ... Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine whether the artwork in the submission was too ambiguous to be registered or whether it could legitimately be registered with instructions to the submitter on how to draw the emblazon more clearly.

A significant discrepancy between the full-sized and mini-emblazon can be reason for return in itself, and is certainly a reason for return when the mini-emblazon's depiction masks a significant style issue with the armory on the full-sized emblazon. The Administrative Handbook requirements for preparation of letters of intent state that "An accurate representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent." The Cover Letter for the April 2002 LoAR stated:

In the last few months, there have been cases where the mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be used with care. Many complaints have been received about mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise unidentifiable.

[Yosef ben Ami, 06/03, R-West]

The submitter's name, Caterina da Napoli, was returned in August 2002. That LoAR was mailed well before this submission was sent to Laurel. Holding names are only formed for armory submissions that appear on an LoI before the LoAR containing the name return could be received and processed by the submission herald, not submissions that appear on an LoI long after the name has already been returned. Thus, even if this submission did not have armorial style problems, it would need to be returned for lack of a name under which to register it. [Katerina da Napoli, 07/03, R-Lochac]

There are several letters used in the submissions process that require a signature. If a signature is required, then the letter must include a copy of the handwritten signature. A text e-mail message does not meet the requirement for a handwritten signature. [08/03, CL]

... we note that the submission form designated the badge for the use of the College of Scribes, but this was not stated in the Letter of Intent. A future resubmission should be clear about whether Kingdom intends to designate the badge for a particular use. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/03, R-Æthelmearc]

... we still have not received an acceptable petition of support. We have received a petition which consists of a piece of paper which describes the device being submitted (very accurately and completely) but the signatures are on a separate piece of paper which has been cut off halfway down the sheet and then taped to the description paper. As noted in the LoAR of November 2001, "As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported by the petition." You wouldn't want your bank to cash a check which had a snipped separate piece of paper with the signature taped onto the check - the same principle applies here.

Lastly, Administrative Handbook section IV.C.5 states "In the case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers." The signatures provided here do not indicate which (if any) officers have signed the petition. As a result it is difficult to determine if a majority of the populace and officers - or the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers - have signed the signature list. The format of the petition is also unclear about whether the signatures shows both SCA and real names of the submitters - or just SCA names. It is thus hard to determine how many people have signed the petition. [Loch Meadhonach, Shire of, 08/03, R-Caltonir]

From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource

Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do something only part way that then requires others to spend time to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up front but cause others more work.

Letters of Intent

When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next person in the submission process to complete the work you started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary information will cost one or more people those minutes and perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the information and wish the help of the College then please specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.

If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b), the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican: Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001 LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from LoIs".

Commentary

Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms. This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or during the decision meeting looking for what you base your statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your commentary.

In Summary

The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.

The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be ignored. [09/03, CL]

It is important to realize that a submission may need to be returned because of a problem with the mini-emblazon, even if the full-sized emblazon does not share that problem. If it appears that the College fully researched the submission despite the problems with the mini-emblazon, we may accept the submission. However, in many cases, the College does not fully research the submission for all style and conflict problems because they felt that the artistic problem on the mini-emblazon was a sufficient reason for return. When this happens, the mismatch between the mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon is a reason for return. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/03, R-Trimaris]

This month we received a request to honor a heraldic will, and we were able to honor it. However, the submission was not accompanied by any evidence that the person who had filed the heraldic will had, in fact, passed on. This was an uncomfortable situation. Our staff reminded us that it is by no means unknown for people to lie about a genuine real-world legal document with malicious intent, so it would be best if the Laurel office were provided with evidence of the death of the heraldic testator. On the other hand, we had no desire to cause any further grief to the bereaved by requesting this of the submitter. Laurel was able to determine that the heraldic will was valid. However, we advise kingdoms to accompany heraldic wills with some evidence indicating that the deceased has, indeed, passed on, to avoid the possibility that a living submitter might be a victim of a cruel prank. [12/03, CL]

Note that jointly owned armory counts against the registration limit of the primary owner of the badge. As noted in the Cover Letter for the July 1992 LoAR, "My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O." The person with the right to release or grant permission to conflict must necessarily have this item counted against his registration limit. [James Andrew MacAllister, 12/03, R-West]

In the spirit of the day after the nominal print date of this cover letter, we should issue a warning about The Quarter, http://www.thequarter.org/. It is an SCA newsletter completely devoted to humor and satire. Those incautious enough to read it while drinking may hurt their nasal passages and their keyboards, and anyone else may be driven to drink. This newsletter takes especial pleasure in poking fun at heralds and revealing our secrets. Laurel and Laurel staff have even been deceived by their irony.

Therefore, we are putting http://www.thequarter.org/ into Administrative Handbook Appendix X, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" ("Index of Prohibited Books"). All heralds are formally enjoined from reading it without prior written permission from Laurel. Laurel expects this injunction to be observed as rigorously as the last time Laurel "formally enjoined" something in Trimaris (LoAR of December 1992). [01/04, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Comments and Commenting

There have been a substantial number of possible visual conflicts called since August 2001. My staff and I have duly looked at each emblazon, and it has been an interesting romp through the binders, the CDs, and the occasional hurried scan and email of a JPG from Filing Central in Austin (thanks, Pelican!) During our first two months, I made certain that each visual check was duly discussed in the LoAR. After looking at the length of the LoARs, the visual checks will only be reported if they appear to be important to discuss. I'll still look at all of them, have no fear. [10/01, CL]

[Ambiguity in wording] The Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR stated:

In this month's submission for Aethelwine Aethelredson (Calontir), a commenter raised the question of whether we should protect the non-SCA arms of the Earl of Atholl.

Ordinarily, such a request during the commentary cycle would cause a pend of the associated SCA armory and would be discussed there rather than in the Cover Letter. In this case, the armory in question was returned for a different reason, so there was no need for a pend. Laurel procedure in the past has been to rule on all requests for protection, whether they are raised in commentary pertinent to a submission in progress or whether they are raised in Letters of Intent to Protect. Therefore, this "orphaned" issue is presented for your consideration here in the Cover Letter.

The Cover Letter then quoted the section of the letter of comment which requested protection of these arms.

This item is being pended for the College's further consideration for two reasons. One reason is the ambiguity in the wording of the Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR. The second reason is the amount of new and pertinent information on this item which was received by the Laurel office, but which had not been presented to the College.

On the issue of ambiguity: As a general rule, when new items are presented to the College, the intent of the writer is clear to the readers. "Letter of Intent" is an accurate term. The Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR did not state that it was the intent of either Laurel or Wreath to protect the arms of the Earl of Atholl. It just asked for "consideration" of a commenter's request for protection of these arms.

The ambiguity in the request for consideration became apparent when we found that we must rule on this submission based on very sparse commentary. The general policy of the College of Arms has long been that "silence implies assent." The intent of the writer of a Letter of Intent is assumed to be supported (or at least, not opposed) by all members of the College who do not comment on the submission. Since the intent of Laurel and Wreath concerning this submission was not made clear in the Cover Letter, it was not clear how we should interpret the silence concerning this request for consideration. We asked some members of the College how they would interpret this silence, and received very disparate answers, implying that the ambiguity was a legitimate problem. Some members of the College felt that, since the Cover Letter did not state Laurel's (or Wreath's) intent to protect the submission, silence implied a lack of support for protection. Others felt that since the cover letter quoted the commenter's request for protection, silence implied support for the commenter's request for protection.

While the College is not, and has never been, a "voting organization", the criteria by which we choose to protect, or not to protect, real-world arms involve opinions as well as fact. Fame, familiarity, and importance are not easy to quantify. If twenty members of the College all provide the same argument explaining why two pieces of armory conflict, the argument is no more or less compelling than if only one commenter has done so. However, if twenty members of the College all state that a particular piece of real-world armory is, or is not, "important", "famous" or "familiar", that shared opinion is more compelling than hearing the same opinion espoused by only one commenter. We therefore strongly encourage all members of the College to comment on issues of protection of real-world armory. While scholarship and informed discussion are always preferred, there is use in even a short comment like "The evidence presented [does]/[does not] justify protecting this armory in the SCA."

It is therefore necessary to state unambiguously how silence will be interpreted in reference to this pended item. Because this item originated as a request for protection of the Earl of Atholl's arms as important non-SCA arms, silence will be interpreted as support for (or lack of opposition to) the protection of the arms. Please note that this statement does not reflect the personal opinions of either Wreath or Laurel. [Atholl, Earl of, 08/02,P-Laurel]

When quoting from the Armorial and Ordinary, please cite the date of the armory as well as the name and blazon. The Wreath files are organized in three different places, based on date: the 1985 and before CD archives, the 1986-1993 CD archives, and the binders. We can save valuable time in the meeting if the registration date is on the citation. My staff and I thank you for your consideration.

Also, when citing cover letters, please cite the LoAR with which the cover letter is associated, as well as the date of the cover letter. It helps find the cover letter in the archives somewhat faster. [10/01, CL]

Conflict with Earl of Morris, Lozengy sable and gules, a hart rampant argent. ... More than [one] commenter cited the conflict above as being "important real-world armory" for "the Earl of Morris." However, the Armorial and Ordinary, and the Earl of Morris submission form, are clear that this registration, originally from 1973 albeit reblazoned later, is not real-world armory. It is just for some SCA guy named [Sir] Earl. Please be precise in your citations. . [Áedán uí Néill, 02/04, R-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"

From Wreath: A Cautionary Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
It has come to our attention that there is a growing trend in the College to create "conflict tables". These tables summarize precedent on some class of armorial elements, such as crosses, flowers, or lines of division. The tables use a simple format that allows one to (for example) compare two types of crosses and look up whether they have no difference, a single CD ("significant" difference), or X.2 difference ("substantial" difference.) The tables also allow the user to identify the LoARs in which the rulings referenced by the table were made.

We understand the desire to provide a quick and simple summary of conflict issues, and we thank the compilers of these tables for their hard work. However, we caution the College that these tables may inadvertently contribute to an inaccurate view of the heraldic issues. We have reached this conclusion by investigating the source of some assertions made in College of Arms commentary, which turned out to be based on overgeneralizations from conflict tables, rather than being based on the combination of the Rules for Submission, examples of period armory, and precedents (past rulings in LoARs). We are happy to see that the conflict tables of which we are aware do reference an LoAR for each assertion made in the table. We suggest that people make use of the conflict tables, but that they do not make up their minds about conflict issues until they have read the full LoAR ruling referenced by the table, and until they have read the LoAR rulings referenced in closely related areas of the table.

In many cases, if there is not a clear general ruling pertaining to some class of armorial elements, it is because the issues pertaining to that class of elements are not easily summarized. RfS X, "Conflicting Armory", explains how armorial conflict in the SCA is based on an attempt to emulate period armorial practices:

A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules. Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently different from protected armory.

It is just as easy - or as difficult - to create a table summarizing the grammar of a language, as it is to create a table summarizing period armorial practices for difference. In both natural language and in armory, there are many generally applicable rules, but also a large number of specific exceptions.

We would like to address one specific misconception which, according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout" cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the cited precedents to see that information. One example of a precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this generalization:

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg. 16)

A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue. Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square brackets:

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped [not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

[03/04, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

[Device change for Consort] This submission has insufficient support from the populace of the Kingdom to be accepted. It is necessary for a kingdom to show support, not merely indifference, for changing armory that is as important as the consort's arms. The total polling, according to the LoI, had 93 respondents with 74 of the respondents in favor of the change. According to the S.C.A. Registry, on April 1, 2003, the Kingdom of Atlantia had 1254 sustaining members, 166 associate members, and 663 family members, for a total of 2083 members. This means that the total polling of 93 people reflected less than 5 percent of the Atlantian membership, with the positive responses being even less than that. We do understand that in any polling, many members will choose not to respond to the polling. Even taking that fact into account, the support shown here is insufficient to support the change in the armory. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/03, R-Atlantia]

From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

This month we were called upon to reflect on the SCA's policy of registering devices for a consort (either for a kingdom or a princpality), or for royal heirs apparent (also for a kingdom or principality). We have no evidence of a real-world consort having arms that differed from her husband's (except for marshalling). We likewise have no evidence of an heir apparent having arms that were not a differenced version of the arms of their parent, except for marshalling, and for fiefs that the heir apparent might have had (such as the Dauphiné, ruled by the dauphin, the heir to the French throne).

The practice of registering devices for the consort and heirs is falling out of favor in the SCA in general. Some of the newer kingdoms have not registered devices for their consorts and their heirs. We applaud the trend to a more period practice with regards to arms, or lack of separate armory for the consort and heirs.

Because the SCA device is parallel to real-world practices for arms, the SCA shall no longer register devices for consorts or for heirs to a kingdom or principality after July 2004.

Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or principalities without consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom arms, and kingdoms may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to display the kingdom arms differenced by a label or other standard mark of cadency. This matches some period armorial display for royal arms.

Kingdoms and principalites that currently have arms registered for the consort or heirs may submit changes to the registered armory via the application of the grandfather clause. We shall require a poll of the populace showing support for changes to the armory. Note that this poll has not previously been explicitly required for the armory of the heirs apparent, but it seems appropriate to require such a poll, which is already required for consorts.

Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms registered for the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider following period practice and to discontinue the use of the armory. [12/03, CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Generic Identifiers

From Pelican: What is a Generic Identifier?

A submission this month raised the issue of generic identifiers again. Given the confusion that exists regarding what is and is not a generic identifier, as well as how generic identifiers are used, we are providing a clarification of this issue.

Generic identifiers are descriptions that may be associated with registered items (mainly badges) to identify the use of that item. Unlike registered names (award names, order names, guild names, household names, et cetera), generic identifiers are not registered as an independent item and are not protected from conflict. This does not mean that the group may not use this identifier, but simply that we will not limit the usage of that identifier to a single group.

Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a university. All baronies can have a baronial guard. All groups can have an equestrian guild.

Adding the name of the branch to the description does not affect generic identifiers (because branch identifiers are transparent for conflict). As an example, Outlands Equestrian Guild falls into the generic category because the only thing that would differentiate it from Equestrian Guild of Calontir are the branch identifiers Outlands and of Calontir.

Some generic identifiers referring to kingdom uses are:

King's battle flag, Ensign, Flag, War banner, populace badge

Some generic identifiers referring to awards or specific positions are:

Champion, Defender, Kingdom Warlord, King's Champion, Queen's Bard, Queen's Champion, Children's Defender, Champion of Arts and Sciences

Some generic identifiers referring to guards and guilds are:

Baronial Guard, Guard, Queen's Guard

Archers, Archery Guild, Armourers' Guild, Bards' Guild, Brewers' Guild, Chirurgeon's Guild, Clothiers' Guild, Cooks' Guild, Equestrian Guild, Herbalist Guild, Needleworker's Guild, Scribes' and Illuminators' Guild, Waterbearers' Guild

Æthelmearc Equestrian Guild, Equestrian Guild of Calontir, Outlands Equestrian Guild

Carolingian Brewers' Guild, Drachenwald Brewer's Guild, East Kingdom Brewer's Guild

Some generic identifiers referring to academies and universities are:

Atlantian Pages Academy, University of Drachenwald, University of the East Kingdom

Some generic identifiers referring to offices are:

Office of the Chatelaine, Ministry of Children, Office of the Minister of Children, Kingdom Chirurgeon, Chronicler, Chronicler's Office, Hospitaller, Office of the Lists

Descriptions such as these are generic and may be used to identify the purpose of a registered item, but are not registerable on their own. They are included in the Ordinary and Armorial as references, rather than as registered items. In this manner, they convey the use of the item with which they are associated, but they are not protected against conflict. [12/02, CL]

The LoAR designated the badge for use by a particular named academy and stated "Atlantia is not attempting to register the Academy Name at this time, merely wishing to associate the badge with that group." Only registered items (such as order names and household names) and generic identifiers may be associated with badges. As the (particularly named) academy is neither a registered item nor a generic identifier, it must be removed from the submission. One recent ruling affirming this long-standing administrative procedure is in the February 2002 LoAR: "The submission was designated as being for the Tinkerer's Guild. However, this is not a generic designation. A tinker is a period artisan, and thus a Tinker's Guild would be a generic designation (like a Blacksmith's Guild) which could be applied to a badge. However, tinkerer does not seem to be a period occupation. Since the branch does not have the name Tinkerer's Guild registered to them, the designation has been removed."

The Cover Letter to the December 2002 LoAR has a long discussion of what sort of identifiers are generic. The summary definition states, "Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a university. All baronies can have a baronial guard. All groups can have an equestrian guild." [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 07/03, A-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- Permission to Conflict

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid. According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed. Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish to consider email headers, or electronic signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these were present in this letter of permission either. [Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/01, R-Trimaris]

[regarding Eleanor Leonard's permission to conflict] Over the years, there have been many requests for permission to conflict made of and given by Eleanor. In 1991, Eleanor Leonard presented the College of Arms with a blanket letter of permission to conflict reserving only the specific ways she intended to use the badge, so that she would not continue to be bothered by requests for permission to conflict.

In the September 1991 LoAR Cover Letter, the relevant portion of the letter was published with a call for discussion. In the January 1992 Cover Letter, Da'ud ibn Auda, then Laurel, did not accept it, giving reasons for not "customizing protection" that included not wanting to complicate the Administrative Handbook, the Armorial, and the lives of SCA heralds. It is true that there would be problems with registering any arbitrary conditions a submitter might impose. However, one simple blanket permission was registered in 1997. The recent edition of the Administrative Handbook now provides for two simple types of blanket letters of permission in III.C.4, "Blanket Permission to Conflict", and Appendix D has a template "Blanket Permission to Conflict". Furthermore, even a more complicated blanket permission may be worth accepting. We will consider such exceptional letters on a case-by-case basis, balancing the costs of implementations of letters versus the benefits to submitters. ...

Therefore, there is permission to conflict for any armory with a primary charge that is not solidly one of the seven major tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert). As well, there is permission to conflict for any fielded armory (not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one of those seven major tinctures. [01/02, CL][Ed.: See the Cover Letter for the complete discussion]

[Azure chapé ployé, a tulip slipped and leaved Or] Conflict with Katheline van Weye, Quarterly vert and purpure, a tulip slipped and leaved Or. The submitter has a letter of permission to conflict from Katheline that explicitly pertained to her previous submission, Azure, a tulip slipped and leaved Or. However, no letter of permission to conflict has been received for this submission. As can be seen in Appendix D of the Administrative Handbook, the standard form letter for a letter of permission to conflict (which was followed in Katheline's letter) only specifically gives permission to conflict between two stated blazons: that of the registered item and that of the submission in progress. The old letter of permission to conflict, as stated, does not pertain to this new submission. It is an unfortunate inconvenience, to be sure, but it does allow precision in granting permission. Note that more general letters of permission to conflict are acceptable if stated clearly and unequivocably. [Sondra van Schiedam, 09/02, R-Calontir]

The device is still in conflict with the armory cited in the previous return, that of Degary Golafre of Pembroke ... The submitter has provided Laurel with emails from Degary's wife, issued from Degary's email account, indicating willingness to provide permission to conflict. However, the administrative handbook requires that "If permission to conflict has been granted, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society." The emails did not include a signature, and therefore are not valid letters of permission to conflict. A scan of a full letter of permission to conflict (including signature along with the text of the letter) would be acceptable, but unsigned text email is not.

The submitter, in her long and unfortunately arduous submissions history, has amassed letters of permission to conflict ... Some of these letters of permission to conflict are by no means recent: the one which bears a date is dated November 27, 1995, and some of the others may be older. The College should note that the administrative handbook does not mandate an "expiration date" for letters of permission to conflict, nor does a letter of permission to conflict cease to be valid if a submission is returned at Laurel. Yet permission to conflict may be rescinded by the owner of the conflicting armory at any time before the submission is registered. Any person wishing to rescind permission to conflict for a submission which has not yet been registered must write to Laurel and the submitting kingdom with an explicit letter to rescind any previously written letter of permission to conflict. [Elina of Beckenham, 09/02, R-West]

It has been requested that the long-standing SCA tradition of assuming that a submitter automatically grants himself permission to conflict should finally be enshrined, in writing, in these hallowed LoARs. Therefore, let it be explicitly known that a submitter is assumed to give himself permission to conflict with all names and armory registered to him individually or jointly. [Timothy of Glastinbury, 11/02, A-Ansteorra]

[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in service to Albrecht von Halstern." ... In addition, the College had concerns about the fact that this armory contains text using another SCA member's registered name (Albrecht von Halstern) without permission from that SCA member. Note that RfS I.3 states (emphasis added) "No name or armory will be registered which claims for the submitter powers, status, or relationships that do not exist." We decline to rule on this issue at this time, as we would like to see more commentary from the College on this topic. However, we strongly suggest that any submitter whose armory contains text that is a registered SCA name should obtain a letter of permission from the referenced person or branch. [Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

The badge conflicts with a badge of Isabel the Mad ... The submitter included a copy of e-mail from Isabel the Mad, which gave permission to conflict, but the e-mail was not signed with an actual signature. The Administrative Handbook section IV.C.3 requires a signature to a letter of permission to conflict:

Permission to Conflict - If permission to conflict has been granted, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. (See Appendix D for a standard form for granting permission to conflict.)

In this month of "spoofed" e-mails courtesy of the computer virus de jour (where the apparent sender of the e-mail was not in fact the real sender of the e-mail) it seems appropriate to reaffirm current precedent on this topic, as stated in the LoAR of November 2001:

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid. According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a written statement of permission must be included, signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed. Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish to consider e-mail headers, or electronic signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these were present in this letter of permission either.

[Gabriel Ximenez de Malaga, 08/03, R-Calontir]

ADIMINSTRATIVE -- Registration Limit

From Laurel: Enough, or More Than Enough?

The CoA Administrative Handbook, in defining limits on the number of items that may be registered, specifically states that, "Kingdoms, principalities, baronies, provinces, and equivalent branches are subject to no limit on the number of items they may register". (AH I.A) In the March 1986 LoAR, Baldwin Laurel returned the five badges, identical save the color of the field, submitted by the Barony of Westermark, saying:

No formal restriction is placed on the number of badges a branch may be submit because it is assumed that branches may have good and constructive reasons for more than one badge. This is an abuse of the privilege. Please advise them to pick one.

Since June 2002, we have been asked to consider nineteen badges from Trimaris (not counting duplicate submissions that were withdrawn by the kingdom). Of these nineteen badges, ten were addressed in June and nine are being considered for registration this month. The Letter of Intent did not explain the intended purpose of any of these badges.

The large number of badges submitted in a short time has raised concerns of abuse of the privilege of unlimited registrations allowed for kingdoms. All the submissions have been for fieldless badges using azure charges, most of nautical origin. On conferring with the submitting kingdom, it appears that they have been registering badges against future need.

The large number of undesignated badges submitted in such a short time, especially when a number of the badges are intended for future use, appears to be an attempt to "corner the market" on azure nautical badges. We consider this to be an "abuse of the privilege" of the unlimited number of registered items allowed by the Administrative Handbook. We believe that badges should only be registered for current or identified need. Therefore, the nine badge submissions from Trimaris are being returned to allow Trimaris to reconsider the need for the registration of these badges at this time.

Laurel wishes to make it clear that, if the kingdom or any branch "subject to no limit on the number of items they may register" has a legitimate need for these badges, it should certainly be able to register them without forcing the kingdom to provide a designation - or worse, an unnecessary associated name registration - to "explain" the need for the badges. Reference to a generic identifier in an armory submission may assist Laurel when considering significant numbers of submissions at a single time. [11/02, CL]

AMPHIBIAN

[a frog tergiant inverted] This device uses a frog in the tergiant inverted posture. The SCA has general precedents against registering inverted animate charges unless they are part of a radially symmetrical group such as in annulo. These precedents are on the grounds that such inverted animals are generally not readily identifiable, and they are not found in period heraldry. However, the SCA also has a registration tradition of allowing animals which are usually found in a tergiant posture to be registered in the tergiant inverted posture. We were asked by the submitting kingdom to rule on the acceptability of the tergiant inverted posture when considering this submission.

There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted animals in heraldry. No evidence was presented by the College. We were only able to find two instances of period or near-period tergiant inverted animals after the Wreath meeting, both of which used scorpions. There is a tergiant inverted scorpion as the crest of Sir William Sharington/Sherrington c. 1547 in Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, p. 104. This crest is a very unusual depiction of the Sherrington scorpion crest/badge: in the town of Lacock (where the Sherrington family was granted the old abbey as a home by Henry VIII), there are period displays of their armory in the Abbey/Sherrington home and in the town church, and the scorpion seems always to be in the default tergiant posture. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie second edition p.215 gives the arms of Cole, Argent, a cheueron, Gules, betweene three scorpions reversed, sable. The emblazon shows the scorpions in what the SCA would call the tergiant inverted posture. The second edition, published in 1632, is not in our period, but is in our grey area. The combination of a perhaps-erroneous emblazon of a crest with a slightly post-period emblazon of armory is not clear evidence of period practices for scorpions, and is certainly not compelling evidence for a general period use of the posture tergiant inverted.

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the identifiability of the charge so much as to render it unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise violate any basic heraldic principles, including the requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be considered a clear step from period practice (also known informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be found in this posture in period. We explicitly decline to rule at this time on whether scorpions tergiant inverted should be considered a "weirdness". [George Anne, 05/02, A-Æthelmearc]

[a frog courant] This frog is not drawn identifiably. Most notably, it lacks the expected webbed feet (appearing, rather, to have feline paws), and instead of having a frog's long hind legs and rear feet, its hind legs and hind feet are only slightly larger than the forelegs and forefeet. In general, the College uniformly found this emblazon to be difficult to identify for a number of artistic reasons.

We note that frogs in period heraldry are invariably found in the tergiant posture. The SCA has registered frogs in other postures as long as they maintained their identifiability. [Dauid Mac an Ghoill, 09/03, R-Meridies]

ANNULET

[(Fieldless) Three thistles conjoined in pall inverted bases to center proper within and conjoined to an annulet Or] The annulet is drawn at the edge of the circle of the form, so that at first glance it appears to be a bordure. This sort of depiction should be avoided, as it causes confusion. [Isabel du Lac d'Azur, 08/01, A-Atenveldt]

[three annulets interlaced one and two Or] A question was raised about possible problems with use of the Ballantine's Ale insignia. While we did not find the corporate web site, we did find beer collectors' web sites showing many beer labels of varying ages, and the Ballantine's Ale logo uses the annulets two and one, not one and two. Because this is a simple geometric logo, without any particular nuances of artwork that make these rings an unmistakable allusion to the Ballantine's logo, the inversion of the three rings design does not infringe on the Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/01, R-Middle]

[Gules, a fireball within an annulet Or] This does not conflict with ... Gules, a horse rampant to sinister within an annulet Or. The annulet functions here as a surrounding secondary charge, like a bordure. This is therefore clear by RfS X.2, as the type of the primary charges has substantially changed, and this is simple armory for purposes of that rule ("no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges.".). [Jehanne le feu du Christ, 06/02, R-Atenveldt]

[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough that they could only be registered to someone able to register the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim al-Dimashqi, 03/03, A-Artemisia]

[Quarterly azure and argent, an annulet sable] Conflict with Conrad Breakring, Argent, an annulet fracted on the dexter side sable. There is one CD for changing the field but nothing for fracting the annulet. The LoAR of February 1999, p. 10, gave no difference between a serpent involved (a serpent biting its tail so that its body is in a circle) and Conrad's annulet fracted: "[Or, a serpent involved sable] This conflicts with Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Argent, an annulet fracted on the dexter side sable., with one CD for the difference in the fields." This default annulet should resemble Conrad's fracted annulet even more strongly than the fracted annulet resembles a snake involved. [Guðrøðr of Colanhomm, 11/03, R-Drachenwald]

ARCHITECTURE

There is no difference between a tower and a lighthouse given the varying depictions of towers and similar architecture in period, so there is only one CD for adding the laurel wreaths. ... A lighthouse, like a beacon, is correctly enflamed at the top only, according to the Pictorial Dictionary. [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/01, R-An Tir]

[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/02, R-An Tir]

The turnpike, or turnstyle, in this submission would be the defining registration of this charge in SCA heraldry. Defining instances of charges require slightly higher standards of documentation than registrations of previously registered charges. This policy has been upheld consistently for over ten years but one of the clearest statements of the policy is in the LoAR of August 1995:

A registration of this submission would apparently be the first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge. Especially in the case of charges not registered previously, the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We need such documentation here.

This submission was accompanied by a single piece of documentation from Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry. This book does not clearly date the charge as having been used in period armory. The only date provided in Parker is associated with the crest of Skipworth, but appears to be the date of the founding of the baronetcy rather than the date of the crest. We consulted Fairbairn's Crests, but that volume did not help resolve the date of that particular crest. No evidence was presented by the submitting kingdom, and none was found by the College or Laurel staff, for use of a turnpike in period heraldry.

If a turnpike is a period artifact, it would probably be "compatible with similar charges in period armory" such as portcullises and doors. However, no evidence was presented describing a period turnpike. Nor was documentation presented showing that a turnpike "has a standardized depiction which would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible." The submission must therefore be returned until such time as the turnpike may be documented appropriately for a defining instance of the charge. [Ian Cradoc, 05/03, R-Atenveldt]

[an arch top] The SCA has not registered an arch top before, although it has registered an arch. The arch top in this submission is the semicircular portion of an arch only, without any columns on the sides.

In some cases, we routinely create a new charge out of a portion of a standard heraldic charge without requiring specific documentation for that portion of a charge being used as an independent charge in period. It was a standard period heraldic practice to create demi-beasts and beast's heads from a beast. In keeping with this real-world practice, if a particular beast or monster is a documented heraldic charge, we routinely allow the registration of a demi-beast/monster or a beast's/monster's head as long as the charge's identifiability is preserved. For example, a demi-enfield preserves its identifiability as a portion of an enfield, as it includes the enfield's fox's head, eagle's forelegs and greyhound's torso. However, an enfield's head does not preserve its identifiability, as it would be identical to a fox's head. We thus would not register an enfield's head, although we could register a fox's head.

In the case of the arch top, it does not appear to be a standard period heraldic practice to create an arch top from an arch, any more than it is a standard period practice to create a tower top from a tower. The College felt that the identifiability of the arch top was not preserved when it is removed from the rest of the arch, and that this charge violated RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent part, "Any charge, ... must be identifiable, in and of itself, without labels or excessive explanation. Elements not used in period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use." The College felt that the arch top was not "identifiable, in and of itself." Moreover, if the arch top is an "[element] not used in period armory", it is not "readily distinguishable from elements that are already in use", as it could be confused with a bridge.

If documentation were provided for an arch top in period heraldry, then the charge could be registered. The concerns about the identifiability of this "[element] not used in period armory" would be removed if documentation were presented showing that an arch top, in this depiction, was a period charge. However, no such documentation has been provided with this submission, or by the College.

Precedent has consistently held that the first submission of a charge to the College should be accompanied by documentation: "This is being returned for lack of documentation. We can find no indication that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of documentation and have return them for lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16). [Odysseus Titinius Maximus, 12/03, R-Calontir]

[a house] This is the first SCA registration of a house. It is shaped like a horizontal billet with a hip roof and a slightly sagging ridge beam. The door is arch-topped and is in the center of the fesswise billet, and there are two small arch-topped windows over the door, one to either side.

The depiction of the house is taken from Von Volborth's Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, p. 54. Von Volborth does modern redrawings but has a good idea of period sensibilities. The illustration says that the arms are of the town of Dorfen, in Bavaria, and are derived from 14th C seals.

Houses are found, if infrequently, in period armory. In addition to the 14th C coat mentioned by Von Volborth, the Dictionary of British Arms gives a few examples of armory depicting a "house" or "hall." Unfortunately, no evidence was either presented or found showing a period depiction of a house as used in heraldry.

The LoAR of May 1998 indicates that the usual SCA procedures for the first registration of a charge are relaxed for architectural charges. While ordinarily a new charge documented solely from a modern redrawing (such as Von Volborth's) would not be registerable, this house meets the criteria set forth in the May 1998 LoAR for first registrations of architectural charges. This charge is clearly recognizable as some sort of a house, and houses were period charges. This is thus analogous to the May 1998 registration of a domed mosque of one minaret which stated:

A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are, particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not heraldry.

In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no different from period heraldic depictions of churches.

This is a change to our normal policy of having the first registration of a charge not documented as having been used in period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example.

[Brian of Leichester and Katryna Robyn, 03/04, A-Æthelmearc]

[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that "The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms) classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the underlying argent field.

Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable. [Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/04, R-Atlantia]

ARRANGEMENT
see also ARRANGEMENT -- Forced Move and ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

[Azure, in chief three cups inverted in chevron Or and in base three plates in chevron] The arrangement of the charges does not match any period pattern. However, this is only one weirdness and is thus registerable. [Ælfgar Greggor of Vulpine Reach, 08/01, A-Merides]

[Or, five birds volant two one and two sable] This device conflicts with ... Or, six ravens close sable. ... There is no CD for arrangement, since six charges cannot be two one and two, and five charges cannot be arranged three two and one. [Robert of Gresewode, 09/01, R-Caid]

[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent, a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme, Stronghold of, 10/01, A-Drachenwald]

[three fleurs-de-lys vs. three ash leaves stems to center] When a group of charges has a visually obvious palewise posture, and a visually obvious top and bottom, there can be a CD between three palewise charges and three charges which are radially disposed. [Ysabel la Serena de Lille, 11/01, A-Artemisia]

[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or. Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de Lochabre, 12/01, A-Atlantia]

[Purpure, a tower within five compass stars in annulo Or] Conflict with a badge of Roland O'Donnell, Purpure, a tower within an orle of lions rampant Or. There is a CD for the change in type of secondary charges. There is normally a CD for changing the arrangement of a group of unnumbered (and thus "many") charges from in orle to in annulo, even on a round badge form. However, Roland's emblazon shows that there are only seven lions in his group of unnumbered charges. Because there are relatively few charges in both these secondary charge groups, the difference in arrangement is much less obvious than when there are eight or more charges in each group. Most of the charges in the two groups are in the same place on the field, and would likely to be in the same place on the field on any shape of escutcheon. Therefore, there is no difference for the change in arrangement, and nothing for the change in number from five to seven charges by RfS X.4.f. [Agripina Argyra, 01/02, R-Ansteorra]

[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent. However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are hampered by this posture.

We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not really, in annulo:

[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of an arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)

This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two stags combattant argent. There is one CD for the difference in arrangement between in fess (as with two animals combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for changing the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to sinister and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín Þorfinssdóttir, 02/02, R-Atenveldt]

[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found, for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon indicates that this design is too far from period style to be accepted.

While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default, simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina, 05/02, R-Middle]

[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm Makalestyr, 07/02, A-Outlands]

Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is three two and one. This matches the default for six objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell, 09/02, A-Caid]

[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds' arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI, but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges in base will be two and one by default, but this is not necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir, 10/02, A-Atlantia]

[Azure, an orle of oak leaves argent] This does not conflict with Catterina da Calabria, Azure, six leaves argent. There is one CD for changing the type of leaf. There is a second CD for changing the arrangement from three two and one to in orle. While six charges three two and one could conceivably be misdrawn to leave a clear open space in the center, that is not the case with Catterina's emblazon, so there is no visual conflict problem between the two pieces of armory. [Jake de Twelfoaks,10/02, A-East]

We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges, such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.

Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/02, R-East]

[three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center] These charges were originally blazoned in annulo, but three charges, two and one, bases to center, are generally blazoned in pall bases to center. A number of commenters questioned whether these charges could allowably be blazoned in pall because the angle of the fleurs-de-lys was not the standard angle for such an arrangement. The problem with the angle of the fleurs-de-lys in the letter of intent is due to the way that the mini-emblazon was cut-and-pasted, or scanned, into the letter of intent. On the full sized form, the three fleurs-de-lys are oriented as one would expect for three charges in pall bases to center. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/02, A-Atenveldt]

[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as two