Armory Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - BETA IN-PROCESS DRAFT

The Tenure of Elisabeth di Rossignol

This is the draft of the precedents from the tenure of Countess Elisabeth di Rossignol as Laurel Queen of Arms. During this period, armory rulings were made primarily by Baroness Jeanne Marie Lacroix, Wreath Queen of Arms. All precedents should be verified with the appropriate LoAR, as editing has occurred for this compilation.

This is a work in progress and therefore is being updated constantly. At the date of last editing, precedents through the LoAR of December 2005 were included in this work.

As have my predecessors before me in compiling Laurel precedents done, I have arranged this work in a standardized format but with alterations which are intended to make the use of this document uncomplicated. There are new categories and the usual index.
URLs from the LoARs are not hotlinked due to the transient nature of web pages.
Please direct all inquiries to the compiler, Lady Teceangl Bach.

Last edited March 19, 2010

ADMINISTRATIVE

This badge was submitted on a device form instead of a badge form. Badges must be submitted on the badge form, although the submitter is free to display it on any shape she desires. [Maredudd Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 10/00, R-Outlands]

This was submitted on a device form, not a badge form. [Cainder ingen hui Chatharnaig, 06/05, R-Ealdormere]

[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] The device is clear of ... Azure, an estoile of eight rays within an annulet and a bordure all argent. Even though an orle looks like an annulet on a round field, they are nonetheless separate charges: if this were drawn on the standard shield shape the difference would be given automatically and it is unfair to penalize the drawing when it is forced to be circular by administrative requirements. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]

III.B.2. 2. Armory of Significant Geographical Locations Outside the Society - All national arms and national flags are considered sufficiently significant to protect, even if not yet listed in the Armorial. The historical or modern armory of other geographic locations may be protected on a case-by-case basis if the location is associated with important administrative, social, political, or military events and the arms themselves are important or well-known. Armory so protected will be listed in the Society Armorial and Ordinary when it is brought to Laurel's attention, but is protected prior to that addition.

AMPHIBIAN

ANNULET

[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]

However, there are examples of supporters in period art that are not upright: as with any other heraldic charge, it's a matter of the supporters being drawn to fill the space available to them. St. John-Hope ("Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers", 1929, p.193) shows how supporters originated on heraldic seals, where the gap between the circular edge of the seal and the triangular shield was often filled with heraldic charges. These charges evolved into supporters; they were upright because of the vertical space they were filling.
On the other hand, when the space for the supporters wasn't vertical, there was no requirement that the supporters be upright. Thus, Hope (op.cit., fig.156) shows the royal tomb of Henry VII: the shield supported by two angels reclining instead of upright. G.W. Eve ("Heraldry as Art", 1907, fig.175) shows a Limoges enamel by Penicaud, early 16th C., where the supporters are horizontal (angels volant, in essence), to fill their space.

As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission)." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR October 1992, p. 12)

As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission)." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR October 1992, p. 12)

As a rule, baby animals are not used in SCA heraldry: they're visually indistinguishable from adult animals, and period examples of their use are rare. Lambs appear to be an exception: not only is the Paschal lamb often found in period armory, but lambs were used for canting purposes (e.g. the arms of Lambert --- or the current submission)." (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR October 1992, p. 12)

[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] The device is clear of ... Azure, an estoile of eight rays within an annulet and a bordure all argent. Even though an orle looks like an annulet on a round field, they are nonetheless separate charges: if this were drawn on the standard shield shape the difference would be given automatically and it is unfair to penalize the drawing when it is forced to be circular by administrative requirements. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]

Although all three `points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts, in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and not in conjunction."[Katherine Sunhair, April, 1992]

The common use in the SCA of a red belt to denote a squire is nevertheless not a protected usage. Therefore this badge is not presumptuous. Furthermore, because badges are not regalia, the registration of this badge does not restrict anyone, squire or not, from wearing a red belt.

Damales Redbeard. Household badge for Maison du Cheval Volant. Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable. Conflict with Cassandra de la Mistral (SCA), Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of Cassandra's Boreas is. Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud.

Armory must arrange all elements coherently in a balanced design. Period armory usually places the primary elements of the design in a static arrangement, such as a single charge in the center of the field or three identical charges on an escutcheon. More complex designs frequently include a central focal point around which other charges are placed, like a chevron between three charges, but the design remains static and balanced. Designs that are unbalanced, or that create an impression of motion, are not compatible with period style.

This device has MANY problems. Starting from the top, the thistles are not properly drawn as heraldic thistles (or even natural thistles), nor are they actually "in saltire" since the heads are obviously fesswise. (In addition the stems seem to be coming from the edge of the chief. The chief is not "doubly arched" since the level of the edges is not the same as that of the central point. ... Continuing down, the position of the fox is pretty clearly not "sejant affronty", since no chest is visible, nor are the haunches. It might be "statant affronty". The thistle in the fox's mouth is nigh invisible.

This conflicts with two badges of Sigenoth the Blissful. The first is a household badge for Maison de la Croix Blanche: Quarterly sable and vert, a cross bottony argent. The second is a personal badge: Per pale sable and vert, a Latin cross bottony argent. As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation. Thus against each of Sigenoth's badges there is a CD for the field, but there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a second CD. In addition, the "cross" appears to be throughout here on three of the four arms. A cross of any type should either be throughout on all arms or not throughout on any of them. Any potential resubmissions using the "cross of swords" motif should keep that in mind.

We do not register fieldless badges which appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. ... Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic charge will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself" (LoAR January 1998).

• plate 24: Rumpff (second quartering), Per bend Or and sable, issuant from the line of division a trefoil bendwise sinister and another inverted counterchanged.
• plate 81: von Hermbsdorf, Per fess engrailed of two argent and gules, issuant from the point a leaf gules.
• plate 85: die Feur von Au, Per chevron inverted ployé argent and gules, issuant from the point a trefoil inverted argent.

According to the PicDic, 2nd ed., # 520, "A musical note is ... commonly represented as a lozenge or an ovoid roundel with a vertical stem at one end." The 'musical note' here is not a period form, but a modern (post-period) one. This one neither matches the semiminim note in the Pictorial Dictionary (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the sinister corner; this version has been superseded by newer research) nor the form the newer research has shown (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the top corner). (LoAR 3/98 p. 16)

I took a look at the emblazon on the An Tir website, and I would say it is within the range of stylized depictions of oak trees found in period Germanic armory. The entertwined branches are a little odd; most such depictions have a more "candelabra" effect (as Parker notes). Nonetheless, I can't see this depiction as unrecognizable or as more than, at most, a step from period practice. ...

Such stylization is unusual for Anglo-Norman armory but not for Germanic armory, in which many types of flora are depicted in very stylized ways. I have, for example, seen linden trees, oak trees, and rose bushes drawn in ways similar to a crequier.

Walter Leonhard's Der Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst, p. 248, fig. 7, shows a stylized oak tree that looks something like a crequier albeit with only 5 branches. Leonhard says it is an "older depiction." The surrounding pages also show many very stylized trees and plants.

[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

Damales Redbeard. Household badge for Maison du Cheval Volant. Azure, on a cloud argent, a horseshoe inverted sable.
Conflict with Cassandra de la Mistral (SCA), Azure, a Boreas affronty argent. There is only one CD for the addition of the tertiary, and even that is minimal because it lies where the "face" of Cassandra's Boreas is. Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner, but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud.

[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

[(Fieldless) A cattail plant with two cattails argent] Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A tuft of three cattails slipped and leaved argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness. However, both these pieces of armory are effectively cattail plants. The exact number of cattails on a plant may be blazonable but is not worth difference. This also conflicts with ... Vert, three cattails slipped and leaved conjoined at the base argent. That armory also appears to be a single cattail plant, resulting in a similar analysis. [Iron Bog, Shire of, 05/02, R-East]

Dyan du Lac des Calandres. Badge. Gules, in fess a tassel Or between a decrescent and an increscent argent.

Conflict with a badge of Conrad von Regensburg, Gules semy of decrescents argent. In Conrad's arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of (six or more) evenly strewn argent decrescents. In Dyan's arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of one argent decrescent, an Or tassel, and an argent increscent. The LoAR of December 2003 gave a lengthy analysis of the way to count difference in a similar situation, where the charge group changed from a registered group of charges on the field consisting of six lions Or, to an in-submission charge group consisting of a lion and a tower Or. That analysis summarized the change as follows:

It should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the change from "considered" to "registered"...

In [this] case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.

After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly [sic] different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.

In this case, we have changed the charge group on the field from [semy of] decrescents argent to a decrescent argent, an increscent argent, and a tassel Or. The strewn ("semy") charges are considered to be equivalent to any charge group with six or more charges for purposes of the rule for difference in the number of charges on the field (RfS X.4.f).

Thus, when changing Conrad's badge to Dyan's, we are changing one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an argent increscent, and one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an Or tassel, and leaving (four or more) of the argent decrescents as argent decrescents. The change in type of two of six (or more) charges (the single tassel and the single increscent) is a change to less than half of the charges in the group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e. The change in tincture to one in six (or more) charges (the tassel) is also a change to less than half the charges in the group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.d.

After the changes to type and tincture (six or more decrescents argent into four or more decrescents argent, one increscent argent, and one tassel Or), we then remove (three or more) of the decrescents, leaving a total of three charges, which is a change from six (or more) charges to three charges. RfS X.4.f notes that three and six are significantly different, and therefore entitled to a CD.

As a result, there is only one CD between these two pieces of armory, and they are therefore in conflict.

I find no evidence of period armory that was cadenced by changing the type of only one of several identical charges and then removing all but the changed one and one other. Without solid period evidence that this sort of pattern would suggest one cadency step, this ruling seems unnecessarily narrow in its interpretation, and I therefore respectfully request that it be revisited with an eye to period cadency.

- It assumes that counting difference is a process requiring a series of intermediate steps to move from point A, the registered armory, to step B, the submitted armory, ignoring the visual aspect of the actual armory.

- It depends on the rules being applied in a specific sequence. In this case, that was type of charges before number of charges: changing one of six charges, worth no CD, and then changing from six to two charges, worth one CD. However, equally valid would be the reverse sequence: changing from six to two charges, worth one CD, and then changing type of one half of the charges, worth a second CD.

- It depends on a non-intutive interpretation of the number of charges changed; Laurel interpreted the change of type as only one of six charges and worth no CD. However, this could equally have been interpreted as three of six charges and worth one CD. This second interpretation is the more likely interpretation.

- It is not easy to explain to heralds and is especially not easy to explain to submitters.

- Against this, Azure, a lion and a unicorn combatant argent has a single CD for adding the argent lion.

- Also against this, Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant has a single CD for adding the Or lion. You cannot get a CD for adding an argent lion and a second CD for changing its tincture to Or as adding an Or lion is the simplest (i.e., fewest steps) counting of the differences.

The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent), and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter). This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in precedent, although the issue continues to be raised occasionally.

1. Use the minimum number of steps or changes between the armory to determine the number of CDs.

2. Compare the registered and submitted armory without assuming any hypothetical intermediate armory.

[CL, 07/05]

[Azure, a sun within an orle argent] The device is clear of ... Azure, an estoile of eight rays within an annulet and a bordure all argent. Even though an orle looks like an annulet on a round field, they are nonetheless separate charges: if this were drawn on the standard shield shape the difference would be given automatically and it is unfair to penalize the drawing when it is forced to be circular by administrative requirements. [Taliesin de Morlet, 03/01, R-Caid]

This conflicts with two badges of Sigenoth the Blissful. The first is a household badge for Maison de la Croix Blanche: Quarterly sable and vert, a cross bottony argent. The second is a personal badge: Per pale sable and vert, a Latin cross bottony argent. As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation. Thus against each of Sigenoth's badges there is a CD for the field, but there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a second CD. In addition, the "cross" appears to be throughout here on three of the four arms. A cross of any type should either be throughout on all arms or not throughout on any of them. Any potential resubmissions using the "cross of swords" motif should keep that in mind.

[Vert, a sun in its glory argent and a chief ermine.] This is clear of Katherine Fitzwalter, Vert, an escarbuncle argent, a chief ermine. There is a substantial (X.2) difference between a sun and an escarbuncle. [Derian le Breton, 07/05, A-An Tir]

From the July 1992 LoAR, p.17: "This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ('wavy bretessed' instead of 'wavy-counter-wavy'), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction." [Andrew Quintero, 09/99, R-Atenveldt]

Gyronny of ten is symmetric around the horizontal line, not the vertical line. (Iestyn ap Cadfael ap Ianto ap Danno ap Richard ap Owen ap Rhys o'r Cwm, September, 1992, pg. 33)

Gyronny should always be drawn with one of its constituent lines fesswise. With straight lines, one can blazon a field like this one as per pale and per saltire, but this is not possible when the lines are arrondy. This design has been returned for redrawing in the LoAR of September 1996:

[Gyronny arrondi of six argent and gules] This is being returned for a redraw. As Master Bruce as Laurel said in his 3/93 cover letter "Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as I've been able to uncover."

[Dofinn-Hallr Morrisson, 02/03, R-East] However, in October 2004 Laurel registered to Garðr Gunnarsson Gyronny arrondi argent and sable, a roundel within an orle Or with the comment "We have an example from an armorial of period Swedish devices showing a gyronny arrondi field similar to this, though standard SCA practice has appropriate lines of division issuing from the corners." Garðr's device does not have the line of division starting in the corner, nor is it symmetrical around the horizontal axis.

As suggested above, the SCA herald expects that a gyronny will have a line of division on the fess-line of the device. The gyronni arrondi shown here does not have a line of division running on the fess-line (a fess-line bisects the shield via a straight line run across the middle, dividing the field into top and bottom halves). Early Norwegian heraldry, however, does use the version shown here, as early as the 14th century: see the arms of Erling Amundsson in 1303, in: Huitfeldt-Kass, Henrik Jørgen, Norske Sigiller fra Middelalderen, 8 vols. Kristiania/Oslo: 1899-1950, entry 30, p.3 and plate 8]. Nine years later he sealed with a similar gyronny arrondy of six (see entry 62 in Norske Sigiller, above): the lines curve in the same direction (clockwise moving out from the centre), and each of the three corners of the shield is approximately in the centre of a piece. (Number the pieces of Invarr's field 1 through 8, starting in dexter chief and going counterclockwise. The pieces of Erling's 1312 seal correspond roughly to 1, 2+3, 4+5, 6, 7, and 8, in alternating tinctures.) Here again there is no line that closely follows the per fess line.

Another item to consider is that gyronny is almost never charged at the center point in period heraldry, and never in Norske Sigiller fra Middelalderen. Some examples of charged gyronny fields are found elsewhere in the SCA's period, for instance Edward Vaughan (1509-1522) had "Gyronny of eight argent and sable, four fleur-de-lys counterchanged; on a saltire Or, five cinquefoils gules".

- plate 24: Rumpff (second quartering), Per bend Or and sable, issuant from the line of division a trefoil bendwise sinister and another inverted counterchanged.

- plate 81: von Hermbsdorf, Per fess engrailed of two argent and gules, issuant from the point a leaf gules.

- plate 85: die Feur von Au, Per chevron inverted ployé argent and gules, issuant from the point a trefoil inverted argent.

This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>. However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation, it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.

We do not register fieldless badges which appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. ...

[Per fess engrailed azure and vert, in chief a natural dolphin argent] ... this conflicts with Anton de Winton, Per chevron azure, and Or scaly sable, in chief a herring naiant embowed argent. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no difference for changing the type of fish. A natural dolphin is not apparently a period heraldic charge, and thus its difference from other charges must be determined on visual grounds under RfS X.4.e. Comparing this dolphin with Anton's herring, the outlines of the two charges are very similar. They both have slightly forked tails (it is impossible to tell whether the tail is supposed to have horizontal or vertical flukes without resorting to internal details, and Anton's dolphin lacks these). Both creatures have a dorsal fin and a forefin. The "beak" or "bottle-nose" on a natural dolphin helps identify it as a natural dolphin, but is not a sufficient outline difference to give a CD from a herring. Note that this ruling does not revoke the many rulings that grant no difference between a heraldic and a natural dolphin. Given the well established trends towards naturalism in Renaissance art and Renaissance heraldic art, it is possible that a natural dolphin might have been used as an artist's variant of a heraldic dolphin. Without evidence for natural dolphins in period heraldry, the natural dolphin will conflict both with heraldic dolphins and with standard-outlined fish, like herring. [Helga Iden dohtir, 04/02, R-Caid]

Two curious forms of Vair occasionally met with in Italian or French coats are known as 'Plumeté' and 'Papelonné'. In Plumeté the field is apparently covered with feathers. Plumeté d'argent et d'azur, is the coat of CEBA (note that these are the tinctures of Vair). SOLDONIERI of Udine, Plumeté au naturel (but the SOLDONIERI of Florence bore: Vairé argent and sable with a bordure chequy or and azure, TENREMONDE of Brabant: Plumeté or and sable (Plate VIII., fig. 7.) In the arms of the SCALTENIGHI of Padua; the BENZONI of Milan, the GIOLFINI, CATANEI, and NUOVOLONI of Veroni, each feather of the plumeté is said to be charged with an ermine spot sable.

This is the first SCA registration of a gridiron, and the submitter has provided documentation showing that it is a period heraldic charge, appearing in one of the earliest pieces of British corporate armory, the Fraternity of Girdlers at St Lawrence in 1332. This depiction of the gridiron is derived directly from James Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, and based on the illustration and blazons in Parker, the default posture is palewise with the handle downwards as in this submission.

For a charge that appears so early in the heraldic records, the gurges is remarkably hard to track down. I suspect it's because it was held by so few families, none of whom were prominent.

At any rate, I've found two period emblazons of the gurges, both for the canting arms of Rauf (or Rafe) de Gorges. One is found in the Fitzwilliam version of the Heralds' Roll, c.1265, which may be seen in "Anglo-Norman Armory I" by Humphery-Smith, p.72. It's drawn as six concentric azure annulets on an argent field, with the outer two annulets cut off by the edge of the shield. The other is from Charles' Roll, c.1285, which may be seen in "Aspilogia III: the Rolls of Arms of Edward I" by Brault, plate I. It's drawn as four concentric azure annulets on an argent field, with the outer annulet cut off by the edge of the shield.

Though these are the only period emblazons of gurges I could find, there are still a few verbal descriptions. The best source is probably "Aspilogia II: Rolls of Arms, Henry III" by London & Tremlett, pp.93, 152. The arms of Gorges are found in Glover's Roll, blazoned in the 1253 text, but tricked in a copy made in 1310 as four concentric annulets, none of which are cut off by the shield edge. Robert Glover, Somerset Herald 1570-88, copied these tricks, rendering the gorges in the spiral form which has been used ever since.

Try as I might, I haven't been able to get a copy of the emblazon of Glover's Roll with the spiral form of gurges. Foster's "Dictionary of Heraldry", p.96, has an example of a spiral gurges, but his emblazons are not to be trusted as accurate depictions of period forms.

The gurges is not found in any of the later-period heraldic tracts. It's not in the Boke of St. Albans, nor in Legh's "Accedens of Armorie", nor in Bossewell's "Works of Armorie", nor in Gwillim's "Displaie of Heraldry" 2nd ed.

We're left, then, with modern emblazons of the spiral gurges, and here we find almost no consensus. The spiral might go clockwise or widdershins; the three points of the shield might be all the same tincture, or not; there might be as few as four turns of the spiral from the center to the edge of the shield (Scott-Giles, "The Romance of Heraldry", p.6) or as many as ten turns (Brooke-Little's "Heraldic Alphabet", p.110); the center of the spiral might end in a point for one of the tinctures and a sort of "knob" for the other tincture (Friar's "Dictionary of Heraldry", p.174) or the two tinctures might be of equal width along their entire lengths (Woodward, plate XIX). About the only thing on which modern heraldic authors agree is that the stripes of the gurges and the field are of equal width.

Most important for our purposes, there's no way of telling the gurges from the field. It's impossible to say, from a modern depiction of a spiral gurges, whether the field is argent and the gurges azure, or vice versa. At least with the earlier depiction, made from concentric annulets, one knew that the central space within the innermost annulet must be the field.

But based on the earliest "concentric annulet" form, if I were today asked to render a spiral gurges, I would draw at least four turns of the spiral before it was cut off by the shield's edge; I would draw one of the stripes with a knob at the center, to represent the center of the innermost annulet of the original form; and I would deem that to be the field.

I would certainly welcome any period emblazons of gurges (either annulet or spiral form) that anyone might uncover.

There is clearly a CD between a schnecke and a gurges, but the consensus of the commentary and those attending the meeting [was] that RfS X.2 does not apply between them. [Peter Schneck, 5/96]

The College was generally in agreement that the addition or deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth difference.

The College was not able to find period evidence about whether crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However, these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.

Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's head.

The opinion of the College is that the primary charge on this device is unidentifiable. RfS VIII.3 states, "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the design." In this case, the heart, a charge not usually seen voided, loses its identifiability when voided and interlaced with the triquetra.

The opinion of the College is that the primary charge on this device is unidentifiable. RfS VIII.3 states, "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the design." In this case, the heart, a charge not usually seen voided, loses its identifiability when voided and interlaced with the triquetra.

We note that inverting the feet severely impairs their identifiability. The submitter should be prepared to argue for their acceptance, should he resubmit with inverted feet. Much better would be to use feet in their default posture; they would go well with the nicely medieval anchors here.

We note that inverting the feet severely impairs their identifiability. The submitter should be prepared to argue for their acceptance, should he resubmit with inverted feet. Much better would be to use feet in their default posture; they would go well with the nicely medieval anchors here.

Even the documented per bend bevilled cannot, by Laurel precedent, be used with dissimilar charges. Legh, Accidences [sic] of Armory (1586), asserts that the field should not be charged at all. We have, as one step beyond period practice, allowed the field to be used with a single type of simple charge. The submitted device, however, would be at least two steps beyond period practice. [Béla Kós, 02/01, R-Outlands]

[A bend potenty on the lower edge] "Conflict with [a plain bend]. Were the ordinary in this proposal potenty on both sides, it would be clear, but the majority of the commenters (and Laurel) did not feel that difference should be granted for this non-period treating of only one (and that the less visually important) side of an ordinary. The only period examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary." (LoAR 11/90 p.15).

• plate 24: Rumpff (second quartering), Per bend Or and sable, issuant from the line of division a trefoil bendwise sinister and another inverted counterchanged.
• plate 81: von Hermbsdorf, Per fess engrailed of two argent and gules, issuant from the point a leaf gules.
• plate 85: die Feur von Au, Per chevron inverted ployé argent and gules, issuant from the point a trefoil inverted argent.

From the July 1992 LoAR, p.17: "This sort of wavy ordinary, with the waves opposed instead of parallel ('wavy bretessed' instead of 'wavy-counter-wavy'), was returned on the LoAR of Dec 91 as a non-period depiction." [Andrew Quintero, 09/99, R-Atenveldt]

This month we registered ...on a pale argent fimbriated vert, a peacock feather proper despite a possible conflict with ...on a pale vert three fangs palewise Or. The argument was made that both pieces of armory could be considered as ...a pale vert charged with <stuff>. However, in order for the new submission to fit this interpretation, it would be blazoned as ...on a pale vert a pale argent charged with a peacock feather proper. That would be four layers, which is unregisterable. Since the unregisterable blazon is the only blazon under which the conflict exists, this is not a conflict.

According to the PicDic, 2nd ed., # 520, "A musical note is ... commonly represented as a lozenge or an ovoid roundel with a vertical stem at one end." The 'musical note' here is not a period form, but a modern (post-period) one. This one neither matches the semiminim note in the Pictorial Dictionary (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the sinister corner; this version has been superseded by newer research) nor the form the newer research has shown (a lozenge shape with a vertical line from the top corner). (LoAR 3/98 p. 16)

[(Fieldless) A cattail plant with two cattails argent] Conflict with ... (Fieldless) A tuft of three cattails slipped and leaved argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness. However, both these pieces of armory are effectively cattail plants. The exact number of cattails on a plant may be blazonable but is not worth difference. This also conflicts with ... Vert, three cattails slipped and leaved conjoined at the base argent. That armory also appears to be a single cattail plant, resulting in a similar analysis. [Iron Bog, Shire of, 05/02, R-East]

This device has MANY problems. Starting from the top, the thistles are not properly drawn as heraldic thistles (or even natural thistles), nor are they actually "in saltire" since the heads are obviously fesswise. (In addition the stems seem to be coming from the edge of the chief. The chief is not "doubly arched" since the level of the edges is not the same as that of the central point. ... Continuing down, the position of the fox is pretty clearly not "sejant affronty", since no chest is visible, nor are the haunches. It might be "statant affronty". The thistle in the fox's mouth is nigh invisible.

We note that inverting the feet severely impairs their identifiability. The submitter should be prepared to argue for their acceptance, should he resubmit with inverted feet. Much better would be to use feet in their default posture; they would go well with the nicely medieval anchors here.

This device has MANY problems. Starting from the top, the thistles are not properly drawn as heraldic thistles (or even natural thistles), nor are they actually "in saltire" since the heads are obviously fesswise. (In addition the stems seem to be coming from the edge of the chief. The chief is not "doubly arched" since the level of the edges is not the same as that of the central point. ... Continuing down, the position of the fox is pretty clearly not "sejant affronty", since no chest is visible, nor are the haunches. It might be "statant affronty". The thistle in the fox's mouth is nigh invisible.

We do not register fieldless badges which appear to be independent forms of armorial display. Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels are all both standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. ...

Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic charge will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA. This explicitly overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display, such as roundels, lozenges and delfs in plain tinctures, since in use the shape does not appear to be a charge, but rather the field itself" (LoAR January 1998).

Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about such "shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the tincture is not plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment), or if the charge is itself charged. Such armory will continue to be returned for the appearance of an independent form of armorial display.[Solveig Throndardottir, 04/02, A-Æthelmearc]

III.B.2. 2. Armory of Significant Geographical Locations Outside the Society - All national arms and national flags are considered sufficiently significant to protect, even if not yet listed in the Armorial. The historical or modern armory of other geographic locations may be protected on a case-by-case basis if the location is associated with important administrative, social, political, or military events and the arms themselves are important or well-known. Armory so protected will be listed in the Society Armorial and Ordinary when it is brought to Laurel's attention, but is protected prior to that addition.

The common use in the SCA of a red belt to denote a squire is nevertheless not a protected usage. Therefore this badge is not presumptuous. Furthermore, because badges are not regalia, the registration of this badge does not restrict anyone, squire or not, from wearing a red belt.

[(Fieldless) A fountain palewise] There is no evidence that fountains were ever borne in other than their default orientation. I consier the "rotation" of a fountain to be a change in its partition, from barry to (in this case) paly. By definition, it then ceases to be a fountain just as it would if the tinctures were changed, say, to gules and Or. (Alden Pharamond, September 1992, pg.37)

• Given that the weeping willow is unknown in period (let alone period Europe), its use is considered one step from period practice (a weirdness).

Armory must arrange all elements coherently in a balanced design. Period armory usually places the primary elements of the design in a static arrangement, such as a single charge in the center of the field or three identical charges on an escutcheon. More complex designs frequently include a central focal point around which other charges are placed, like a chevron between three charges, but the design remains static and balanced. Designs that are unbalanced, or that create an impression of motion, are not compatible with period style.

However, there are examples of supporters in period art that are not upright: as with any other heraldic charge, it's a matter of the supporters being drawn to fill the space available to them. St. John-Hope ("Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers", 1929, p.193) shows how supporters originated on heraldic seals, where the gap between the circular edge of the seal and the triangular shield was often filled with heraldic charges. These charges evolved into supporters; they were upright because of the vertical space they were filling.

On the other hand, when the space for the supporters wasn't vertical, there was no requirement that the supporters be upright. Thus, Hope (op.cit., fig.156) shows the royal tomb of Henry VII: the shield supported by two angels reclining instead of upright. G.W. Eve ("Heraldry as Art", 1907, fig.175) shows a Limoges enamel by Penicaud, early 16th C., where the supporters are horizontal (angels volant, in essence), to fill their space.

This conflicts with two badges of Sigenoth the Blissful. The first is a household badge for Maison de la Croix Blanche: Quarterly sable and vert, a cross bottony argent. The second is a personal badge: Per pale sable and vert, a Latin cross bottony argent. As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation. Thus against each of Sigenoth's badges there is a CD for the field, but there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a second CD. In addition, the "cross" appears to be throughout here on three of the four arms. A cross of any type should either be throughout on all arms or not throughout on any of them. Any potential resubmissions using the "cross of swords" motif should keep that in mind.

• There is a CD between a weeping willow tree and an oak tree or a generic tree.
• There is not a CD between a white willow, which is the default willow tree, and an oak tree or a generic tree.
• There is a CD between a white willow tree and a weeping willow tree.
• Given that the weeping willow is unknown in period (let alone period Europe), its use is considered one step from period practice (a weirdness).

I took a look at the emblazon on the An Tir website, and I would say it is within the range of stylized depictions of oak trees found in period Germanic armory. The entertwined branches are a little odd; most such depictions have a more "candelabra" effect (as Parker notes). Nonetheless, I can't see this depiction as unrecognizable or as more than, at most, a step from period practice. ...

Such stylization is unusual for Anglo-Norman armory but not for Germanic armory, in which many types of flora are depicted in very stylized ways. I have, for example, seen linden trees, oak trees, and rose bushes drawn in ways similar to a crequier.

Walter Leonhard's Der Grosse Buch der Wappenkunst, p. 248, fig. 7, shows a stylized oak tree that looks something like a crequier albeit with only 5 branches. Leonhard says it is an "older depiction." The surrounding pages also show many very stylized trees and plants.

• There is a CD between a weeping willow tree and an oak tree or a generic tree.
• There is not a CD between a white willow, which is the default willow tree, and an oak tree or a generic tree.
• There is a CD between a white willow tree and a weeping willow tree.
• Given that the weeping willow is unknown in period (let alone period Europe), its use is considered one step from period practice (a weirdness).

The opinion of the College is that the primary charge on this device is unidentifiable. RfS VIII.3 states, "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the design." In this case, the heart, a charge not usually seen voided, loses its identifiability when voided and interlaced with the triquetra.

[(Fieldless) A fountain palewise] There is no evidence that fountains were ever borne in other than their default orientation. I consier the "rotation" of a fountain to be a change in its partition, from barry to (in this case) paly. By definition, it then ceases to be a fountain just as it would if the tinctures were changed, say, to gules and Or. (Alden Pharamond, September 1992, pg.37)

This conflicts with two badges of Sigenoth the Blissful. The first is a household badge for Maison de la Croix Blanche: Quarterly sable and vert, a cross bottony argent. The second is a personal badge: Per pale sable and vert, a Latin cross bottony argent. As drawn the swords are visually indistinguishable from a cross crosslet or bottony, and the submitted blazon on the LoI supports this interpretation. Thus against each of Sigenoth's badges there is a CD for the field, but there is insufficient difference between the charges to get a second CD. In addition, the "cross" appears to be throughout here on three of the four arms. A cross of any type should either be throughout on all arms or not throughout on any of them. Any potential resubmissions using the "cross of swords" motif should keep that in mind.

• Wings-that-hold that follow the pattern of the Calabria arms will be blazoned as a wing terminating in a hand. This is the standard depiction found in German heraldry.
• Wings-that-hold that follow the pattern of the Villena arms will be blazoned as a hand issuant from a wing or a wing with a hand issuant
• Winged hands or claws will be blazoned as winged hands/claws or hands/claws conjoined to a wing.