| Frequently Sought Precedents |
There have been a large number of precedents
set by the various Laurel Sovereigns of Arms.
Several of these precedents are often sought after, to clarify the ruling on a
topic, but
sometimes folks have trouble tracking down the specific precedent they are
seeking.
This webpage has been created to serve as an
aid to those seeking a specific precedent
by listing the more frequently used precedents and the precedents that folks
tend to have difficulty in locating.
This site will grow in the direction that
heralds note they have need of.
If there is a precedent that you think
should be added to the list,
please send an e-mail to Modar at:
rknight@kumc.edu
Search Aid
Morsulus Herald's Website - Google LoARs...simple add your search terms to the search string
Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - Collections of precedents by the
Laurel-Sovereign-of-Arms who set them.
Armory Precedents
| Alligator: | For alligators and crocodiles there is not a
significant difference between the statant/passant and couchant/dormant
postures. September 2004 |
| Angel Wing: | "we will follow the stated default from Parker and declare
that an angel's wings are displayed by default when the angel is
affronty." August 2004 LoAR |
| Armory with Literary Allusions: | Return of Ioseph of Locksley, the Rhymer.
Badge. A cat rampant gardant argent, vested of a hat sable, a cape gules,
and a pair of boots sable turned gules, and grasping in its sinister forepaw
a swepthilt rapier argent, hilted sable.
“Of greater importance, however, is the fact that the badge is
recognizable as Puss in Boots. While there is precedent for badges of this
sort (one of Master Ioseph's other badges is a representation of the Town
Musicians of Bremen), I cannot recall any other instances, and the College
of Arms has a fairly ancient tradition of disallowing strong literary and
historical allusions. This badge may be construed as an infringement on the
character of Puss in Boots, or as a proprietary claim thereto, either of
which makes it inappropriate. Please redesign.” |
| Armory Weirdnesses: | List of Armory Weirdnesses webpage |
| Arrondy: | "[a CD] for changing the style of the line from straight to
arrondy." July 2004 LoAR |
| Arthropod & Insect: | "The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as
other arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or
arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period heraldry. Without
an extensive change in policy concerning the acceptability of insects or
arthropods statant, this may be registered." August 2002 LoAR "Rising is not a defined posture for insects." "Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal body,
legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which are statant in a
clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister posture. However, it is not
acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90 degrees to a "palewise" posture. The
resulting posture, with a vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is
equivalent to the previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and
similar insects." The proper tincture for bees is defined in precedent as "sable and Or,
with argent wings" "When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly." "In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default" "There is a CD between a bee tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both
postures show the bees with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has
wings visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only has
wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This difference is worth a
CD, analogous to the difference between a bird rising wings displayed and a
bird rising wings addorsed." |
| Augmentation: | Discussion on Augmentations October 2003 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Axe: | Axes vs Double-bitted axes: "nothing for changing the type
of axes" November 2001 LoAR "under current precedent, there is no difference
for changing the tincture of the hafts of the axes" |
| Badger / Brock: | "the SCA has no default proper tincture for brocks or
badgers." November 2003 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Bat / Reremouse: | "The reremouse is both displayed and guardant by default.
Since this reremouse is displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its
posture has been explicitly blazoned for clarity." March 2002 LoAR
"Bats inverted have been explicitly allowed in the SCA in the past, as long
as they are identifiable" "We will accordingly consider a bat
(displayed) inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness")
unless documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry." The reremouse is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its
body in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable by
previous precedent: "The bat was not dormant, but was rather in its
natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this posture in period
heraldic depictions of bats, and for good reason: this posture eliminates
any identifiable aspects of the bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c,
Natural Depiction: ... Excessively natural designs include those that
depict animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability" |
| Beaver: | "a sea-dog and a beaver were considered distinct charges in
period and should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e." January 2004 LoAR "Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial
Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default." "The heraldic beaver is drawn with a stocky, smooth-furred (not finned or
scaled) body, a wide (usually, but not always, paddle-like) tail, and small
or nonexistent ears." |
| Bee: | The proper tincture for bees is defined in precedent as "sable and Or,
with argent wings" March 2005 LoAR Cover Letter "When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and
a dragonfly." "In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default" "There is a CD between a bee tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both
postures show the bees with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has
wings visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only has
wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This difference is worth a
CD, analogous to the difference between a bird rising wings displayed and a
bird rising wings addorsed." |
| Bevilled: | A discussion of the manner it should be drawn,
with illustrations, is noted in the cover letter (see link). August 1992 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Bird: | Discussion of Birds & Substantial Difference November 2003 LoAR Cover Letter Discussion of Generic Birds "There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough." "A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is
considered an unblazoned variant of close" "There is no difference in posture between these
birds except for the head position, which is insufficient for posture
difference by RfS X.4.h." |
| Boar: | "There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar." November 2002 LoAR |
| Branch (Group) Arms - Display & Use of : | "The arms of a branch are reserved to the head
of the branch. In the case of a kingdom, principality or barony this is the
King, Prince or Baron. In all other cases it is the seneschal. Kings,
Princes and Barons may bear the arms of their branch upon a shield in battle
as if they were their own personal arms, so long as they hold their office
and no longer. Seneschals may not do so. All heads of branches may display
the banner of the branch to indicate their presence. At any event held in a
branch the arms of the branch may be displayed whether or not the head of
the branch is present, to indicate that the branch is hosting the event. In
grand marches the arms of branches may be carried by groups marching as
those branches. Otherwise nobody can display the arms of a branch as if they
were personal arms." July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter "Branches may register one or more badges which are to be
useable by groups or individuals belonging to those branches. A province
could register a badge to be used by a provincial mercenary unit, such as a
shield wall squad. A kingdom could register a badge to be used by all
subjects of the kingdom at wars with another kingdom to show their
allegiance." |
| Brock / Badger: | "the SCA has no default proper tincture for brocks or
badgers." November 2003 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Camels: | "we may register brown camels proper" March 2002 LoAR |
| Candelabra: | "There is a CD between a three-armed candelabra and a
nine-armed candelabra." November 2002 LoAR |
| Chapé: | The chaussé line of division, along with
chapé and vetu , are different from other lines of divisions in that the
outer portions never contained charges in period. Thus we can also not allow
charges that overlap the outer portions. May 2000 LoAR It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé
or chaussé. Nor do we charge the shod part of a chapé or chaussé field. |
| Cats / Felines: | "There is no type difference between a [domestic] cat and a
natural panther." November 2002 LoAR "There is one CD, but not substantial difference, between a
heraldic panther and a lion" "there is only one CD between a heraldic tyger and a lion" "There is no difference for changing the type of feline from a lynx to a
natural leopard" |
| Chain, Circular (Chain, Annulet of): | FROM LAUREL - A Clarification Regalia for the
Order of Knighthood includes (Tinctureless) A circular chain. This means a
circular chain of any tincture, not just gold. It was so designated by
Laurel in 1998, so there is nothing new here. Wreath tells me that
some have interpreted this to mean that any necklace, whether or not it is
unadorned, should be restricted. That is not the case. A necklace with a
pendant is not the same as a knight's chain and there should be no question
of improper use of a restricted charge in such a submission. August 2006 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Charges that are the same but of two different sizes: |
"This is being returned for violating the long-standing
precedent of using two different sizes of the same charge on the field." March 1998 LoAR |
| Charges that are gyronny: | "There is no difference for changing the order
of the tinctures in gyronny fields per RfS X.4.a and the SCA has
traditionally extended this lack of difference to gyronny charges." August 2003 LoAR |
| Charges that are within an annulet or mascle: |
"Thus in armory with a <charge> within a Bowen
knot, the Bowen knot is the primary charge and the <charge> is secondary.
This ruling does not change the fact that a charge within an annulet or a
mascle is the primary charge." August 2005 LoAR |
| Charge vs Charge Throughout: | In general there is a difference between an
ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary
throughout vs. its non-throughout version. May 1997 LoAR |
| Chaussé: | The chaussé line of division, along with
chapé and vetu , are different from other lines of divisions in that the
outer portions never contained charges in period. Thus we can also not allow
charges that overlap the outer portions. May 2000 LoAR It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé
or chaussé. Nor do we charge the shod part of a chapé or chaussé field. |
| Chess Rook: | "There is substantial difference between a tower and a
properly drawn chess rook" December 2001 LoAR |
| Cockatrice vs Dragon: | Cockatrice are considered different from
dragons and therefore do not conflict with one another. This is confirmed in
the Precedents of the SCA CoA, citing from the November 1997 LoAR of the
armory of Wolfger von Lausfenburg: "[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not
normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster.
However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since
the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the
necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts." November 1997 LoAR & Laurel Precedent |
| Collars: | "the collar was drawn as if the wolf's head were resting on
it. Precedent says, "When an animal's head is collared, the neck shows above
and beneath the collar, and the collar is treated as a tertiary charge. In
this armory, the cat's head rests atop a disproportionately wide and deep
collar. The cat's neck is not visible beneath the collar. This does not
appear to be a period way of depicting a collared animal's head" [Cristal
Fleur de la Mer, 02/03, R-Caid]. While the collar on this wolf's head is a
reasonable size, it must be redrawn so that the wolf's neck is visible below
the collar." March 2005 LoAR "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." |
| Comet: | "Some commenters felt that heading a comet of a roundel,
rather than a mullet or an estoile, might be an additional problem with this
armory. However, given the different period depictions of comets, a comet
headed of a roundel is a reasonable variant." July 2002 LoAR |
| Complex Lines & Contrast: | A collation of precedents webpage |
| Conflict Table - Cross | table |
| Conflict Table - Flower | table |
| Conflict Table - Line of Division: | table |
| Conflict Table - Posture | table |
| Coronets & Crowns: | SCA CoA Glossary of Terms -
Reserved
Charges Table "Kingdoms must also include a crown or coronet in the
design. Principalities may include a crown or coronet, but are not required
to do so." "This hereby overturns the ban on people of baronial rank using coronets
in their arms. Henceforth, in addition to royal peers, court barons/esses
may use coronets in their arms. Note: this does not include
territorial barons/esses, since that is not a permanent rank. Just as a
sitting king/queen/prince/princess cannot put a coronet on their arms until
after they have attained the rank of count/ess or viscount/ess,
since, while it is rare, there have been cases of royalty who have not
completed their reign, neither can a territorial baron/ess, unless they are
already a court baron/ess, use a coronet, since they have not attained a
permanent baronial rank." "He is also a court baron and thus entitled to bear a coronet." Precedent says, "While it has been true that the default coronet is a
simple coronet of three points, we have for a while now been allowing the
blazon coronet to be used with any period depiction of a coronet that is not
otherwise reserved". No documentation was provided showing that a coronet
with single central point at the front is a period depiction of a coronet. "Clarion has given evidence that pearled coronets existed in 16th century
Scotland, although they were not associated with barons. Therefore we are
allowing the use of pearled coronets; however, if the type of coronet is
blazoned at all, it will be blazoned as pearled not baronial." 'There is no 'standard' viscomital coronet, either as a physical entity
or an heraldic convention.' Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default
heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose."| "A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is treated by the SCA as
having a tertiary charge." "A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge."
"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." |
| Courant vs Passant: | "there should not be a CD between passant and courant" &
"There is a significant amount of evidence implying that courant and passant
were used interchangeably in English armory." August 2001 LoAR |
| Courant vs Statant: | "There is no difference between statant and courant, because
the evidence which has so far been obtained indicates that these postures
were interchangeable in period." & "Statant should thus not be given
difference from courant, because it was interchangeable with courant in
period - just as passant was interchangeable with courant in period." September 2003 LoAR |
| Crocodile: | For alligators and crocodiles there is not a
significant difference between the statant/passant and couchant/dormant
postures. September 2004 |
| Cross: | A collation of precedents webpage |
| Cross Used to Prevent Appearance of Marshaling: | There are precedents which note that, since
crosses were used with quartered (marshaled) arms in period, the addition of
a cross overall does _not_ overcome the appearance of marshalling.
[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister
two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable] "Given that crosses overall were not
infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of
the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a <B> vert]." [The
submission was returned for this reason.] [Registering Quarterly azure and argent, a cross couped between in bend
two towers and in bend sinister two roses all counterchanged.] "This comes
perilously close to having the appearance of marshalled arms. The fact that
the cross here is used as a charge rather than the default cross throughout
(which is considered an ordinary) saves it from falling afoul of XI.3. No
evidence was found by any of the commenters that crosses couped were used in
the same way as crosses throughout, crosses paty throughout, or crosses
engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms." |
| Display & Use of Group Arms: | "The arms of a branch are reserved to the head
of the branch. In the case of a kingdom, principality or barony this is the
King, Prince or Baron. In all other cases it is the seneschal. Kings,
Princes and Barons may bear the arms of their branch upon a shield in battle
as if they were their own personal arms, so long as they hold their office
and no longer. Seneschals may not do so. All heads of branches may display
the banner of the branch to indicate their presence. At any event held in a
branch the arms of the branch may be displayed whether or not the head of
the branch is present, to indicate that the branch is hosting the event. In
grand marches the arms of branches may be carried by groups marching as
those branches. Otherwise nobody can display the arms of a branch as if they
were personal arms." July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter "Branches may register one or more badges which are to be
useable by groups or individuals belonging to those branches. A province
could register a badge to be used by a provincial mercenary unit, such as a
shield wall squad. A kingdom could register a badge to be used by all
subjects of the kingdom at wars with another kingdom to show their
allegiance." |
| Dragon vs Cockatrice: | Cockatrice are considered different from
dragons and therefore do not conflict with one another. This is confirmed in
the Precedents of the SCA CoA, citing from the November 1997 LoAR of the
armory of Wolfger von Lausfenburg: "[a dragon vs a cockatrice] We do not
normally give a difference for changing the head only of a beast or monster.
However, since they were considered different monsters in period, and since
the head is not obscured in any way, we are willing to grant it the
necessary CD to make it clear of these possible conflicts." November 1997 LoAR & Laurel Precedent |
| Dragonfly: | "When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a
dragonfly." September 2001 LoAR |
| Elfbolt: | "The elfbolt is an SCA-invented charge referring to a
stone-chipped arrowhead. The Pictorial Dictionary states that "prehistoric
specimens found by the ancients were attributed to the Little People."
"The College also questioned whether an elfbolt should continue to be
registerable in the SCA, as it is an SCA-invented charge. The charge clearly
was an artifact that was known in period, namely, old chipped arrowheads
that could be found by period people. As a period artifact, a stone-chipped
arrowhead may be registered if it is drawn identifiably." March 2003 LoAR |
| Enfield: | "there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and
thus, a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield are
not obscured by other elements of the design" September 2003 LoAR |
| Engrailed Lines vs Invected Lines: | We therefore confirm and expand our current
definition: A field division engrailed has the points to the "honorable"
part of the shield: Per fess, per chevron, per bend and per bend sinister
engrailed have the points to chief, while Per pale engrailed now has the
points to dexter. A field division invected has the points to the less
honorable part of the shield: Per fess, per chevron, per bend and per bend
sinister invected have the points to base, and Per pale invected has the
points to sinister.
And what of Quarterly, per saltire, and per pall engrailed/invected? I
was afraid you'd ask... These could either be drawn as in Bossewell, as
combinations of the above lines (e.g., Per fess and per pale for Quarterly),
or else the line could "revolve" around the center of the shield (e.g. a
Quarterly invected line would have points to sinister at top, points to
chief on the dexter limb, points to dexter on the base limb, and points to
base on the sinister limb). As long as the emblazon is unambiguous, we'll
accept either form. |
| Field Treatment: | Discussion on Field Treatments September 2002 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Fimbriation: | "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with
simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." RfS VIII.3. NOTE: All single edged ordinaries, which are the peripherals (chief, flaunches, base, bordure, etc), are affected by this rule, as they do not pass thru the center of the design. "...only charges may be fimbriated, not field divisions." |
| Fimbriation (no difference for): | "Indeed, in view of the minimal visual impact
of fimbriation, even when drawn properly, it is very difficult to imagine a
situation where the addition of fimbriation or the change of the tincture of
fimbriation should contribute to difference." November 1989 LoAR and [A bend vs. a bend fimbriated] "[There is] nothing for the fimbriation of
the bend." |
| Flamingo Proper: | In April 1985 (q.v., Cherie Ruadh MhicRath of
Locksley) Laurel ruled, "The color of a flamingo's feathers is apparently
dependent on its diet, so there really is no 'proper' color." This has been
interpreted to mean that flamingos proper could not be registered; however,
pink flamingos proper have been registered since that time, including as
recently as April 2006. The 1985 precedent is hereby overturned; a pink
flamingo proper is registerable. It is dark pink while the tincture of its
beak and legs are treated as artistic license. Its tincture is a color, not
a metal. February 2007 LoAR |
| Flaunches: | Flaunches are always borne in pairs. August 1977 LoAR The flaunches must be of one color, not two. They represent "flanks,"
that is, sides, of an under-robe which is seen through the openings of an
open-sided surcote. [November 1978 LoAR] Flaunches voided and flaunches cotised are both non-period. |
| Fox: | A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white
at tip of tail" October 2002 L:oAR |
| Gores: | "Based on the consensus of those commenting on
this issue, the College will ban the use of charged gores and charged
gussets, matching the ban on charged tierces. Uncharged gores, gussets, and
tierces will continue to be registerable. Any charged gores or gussets
currently pending at Laurel will be processed as having been "in the
pipeline" before the ban went into effect. Therefore, after March 1, 1992,
we will no longer register charged gores or gussets." November 1991 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Grapes: | Regarding grapes, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, by James
Parker, says on p. 602
(s.n. Vine),
"When blazoned proper the leaves should be vert, the fruit purpure." March 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Gurges: | "no difference will be granted between <tincture 1>, a gurges
<tincture 2> and <tincture 2>, a gurges <tincture 1>." July 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
| "Fieldless badges cannot use charges which issue or are defined by the
edge of the field. The gurges is such a charge, and therefore may not be used on a fieldless badge." April 1992 LoAR |
|
| It has previously been ruled (LoAR of Oct 90) that the gurges may
not be couped: "Whirlpools or gurges are used as a single, throughout charge on a field." July 1993 LoAR |
|
| Discussion of Gurges vs Schnecke July 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
|
| Gussets: | "Based on the consensus of those commenting on
this issue, the College will ban the use of charged gores and charged
gussets, matching the ban on charged tierces. Uncharged gores, gussets, and
tierces will continue to be registerable. Any charged gores or gussets
currently pending at Laurel will be processed as having been "in the
pipeline" before the ban went into effect. Therefore, after March 1, 1992,
we will no longer register charged gores or gussets." November 1991 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Gyronny: | "There is no difference for changing the order
of the tinctures in gyronny fields per RfS X.4.a" August 2003 LoAR "At this time we are explicitly ruling that there is _not_ a CD
between gyronny and gyronny arrondi" |
| Halo: | There was some question as to the
registerability of the halo as it is an annulet, not a solid disk. The
annulet-type halo improves the recognizability of the primary charge (by
avoiding argent on Or). Either form of a halo is acceptable; they are
artistic variants. December 2006 LoAR |
| Hand: | "The cupped hand is neither a documented nor a recognizable
position." April 2000 LoAR |
| Hippopotamus: | "There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar." November 2002 LoAR |
| Honeycombed: | "Honeycombed was defined as a weirdness in the LoAR of June
1999. It is not a period field treatment, nor has it become entrenched in
SCA usage." "Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002, honeycombed will no longer
be registerable in the SCA." September 2001 LoAR |
| Humans: | 'Rampant' does not appear to be a human
posture. January 1995 LoAR & [W]e don't register rampant humans or humanoids. September 1997 LoAR |
| Ibex: | Discussion on Ibex, Antelope, Goat and Deer January 2006 LoAR Cover Letter |
| In Annulo: | "The [charge] in chief determines the direction of rotation.
By default, it points to dexter and so, by default, the [charges] are
oriented in a widdershins direction." December 1980 LoAR Widdershins vs. deasil is simply an artistic nuance
of in annulo, and need not be blazoned." |
| In Annulo vs In Annulo Contourny: | "the in annulo placement visually dominates, and thus
subsumes, any specification of direction. Widdershins vs. deasil
is simply an artistic nuance of in annulo, and need not be blazoned."
[Clarification note: Thus there is no difference between "three X in annulo"
and "three X contourny in annulo".] August 1993 LoAR |
| In Orle: | "In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the postures of the
charges tilt so that they follow each other. Thus, an orle of fish naiant
would all be in the default naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of
fish naiant in orle swim head to tail." September 2003 LoAR |
| Insect & Arthropod: | "The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as
other arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or
arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period heraldry. Without
an extensive change in policy concerning the acceptability of insects or
arthropods statant, this may be registered." August 2002 LoAR "Rising is not a defined posture for insects." "Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal body,
legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which are statant in a
clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister posture. However, it is not
acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90 degrees to a "palewise" posture. The
resulting posture, with a vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is
equivalent to the previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and
similar insects." The proper tincture for bees is defined in precedent as "sable and Or,
with argent wings" "When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly." "In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default" "There is a CD between a bee tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both
postures show the bees with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has
wings visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only has
wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This difference is worth a
CD, analogous to the difference between a bird rising wings displayed and a
bird rising wings addorsed." |
| Invected Lines vs Engrailed Lines: | We therefore confirm and expand our current
definition: A field division engrailed has the points to the "honorable"
part of the shield: Per fess, per chevron, per bend and per bend sinister
engrailed have the points to chief, while Per pale engrailed now has the
points to dexter. A field division invected has the points to the less
honorable part of the shield: Per fess, per chevron, per bend and per bend
sinister invected have the points to base, and Per pale invected has the
points to sinister.
And what of Quarterly, per saltire, and per pall engrailed/invected? I
was afraid you'd ask... These could either be drawn as in Bossewell, as
combinations of the above lines (e.g., Per fess and per pale for Quarterly),
or else the line could "revolve" around the center of the shield (e.g. a
Quarterly invected line would have points to sinister at top, points to
chief on the dexter limb, points to dexter on the base limb, and points to
base on the sinister limb). As long as the emblazon is unambiguous, we'll
accept either form. |
| Inverted Animate Charges & Inverted Tergiant Animate Charges: |
"We do not allow inverted animate charges in
SCA heraldry except when in recognized orientation, such as in annulo." February 1999 LoAR "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. " "There is very little period evidence for tergiant inverted animals in heraldry." "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." |
| Knight's Chain: | FROM LAUREL - A Clarification Regalia for the
Order of Knighthood includes (Tinctureless) A circular chain. This means a
circular chain of any tincture, not just gold. It was so designated by
Laurel in 1998, so there is nothing new here. Wreath tells me that
some have interpreted this to mean that any necklace, whether or not it is
unadorned, should be restricted. That is not the case. A necklace with a
pendant is not the same as a knight's chain and there should be no question
of improper use of a restricted charge in such a submission. August 2006 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Laurel Wreath: | "By current precedent, a laurel wreath
is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary." June 1994 LoAR |
| Literary Allusions - Armory: | Return of Ioseph of Locksley, the Rhymer.
Badge. A cat rampant gardant argent, vested of a hat sable, a cape gules,
and a pair of boots sable turned gules, and grasping in its sinister forepaw
a swepthilt rapier argent, hilted sable.
“Of greater importance, however, is the fact that the badge is
recognizable as Puss in Boots. While there is precedent for badges of this
sort (one of Master Ioseph's other badges is a representation of the Town
Musicians of Bremen), I cannot recall any other instances, and the College
of Arms has a fairly ancient tradition of disallowing strong literary and
historical allusions. This badge may be construed as an infringement on the
character of Puss in Boots, or as a proprietary claim thereto, either of
which makes it inappropriate. Please redesign.” |
| Lozenge vs Lozenge Ployé & Lozenge vs Lozenge Throughout |
"There is no difference between a lozenge and a
lozenge ployé, nor is there difference between a lozenge and a lozenge
throughout." November 2002 LoAR |
| Mailly: | "Mailly is a field treatment which covers the treated
area with a pattern of linked rings representing chain mail. It is a modern
invention." "Because mailly cannot reasonably be viewed as anything
other than a "field treatment", and because SCA-invented "field treatments"
are too far from period practice to be acceptable, mailly will no
longer be accepted after the LoAR of April 2003." September 2002 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Maintained Charges & Simple Armory: |
"Our practice has been to ignore maintained
charges when defining a device as simple armory for the purposes of this
rule [RfS X.4.j.ii.] and RfS X.2." May 2005 LoAR |
| Marshaling & Use of Cross: | There are precedents which note that, since
crosses were used with quartered (marshaled) arms in period, the addition of
a cross overall does _not_ overcome the appearance of marshalling.
[Quarterly gules and argent, in bend two <As> argent and in bend sinister
two <Bs> vert, overall a cross sable] "Given that crosses overall were not
infrequently used in marshalled arms in period, this has every appearance of
the marshalled arms of [Gules, an <A> argent, and Argent, a <B> vert]." [The
submission was returned for this reason.] [Registering Quarterly azure and argent, a cross couped between in bend
two towers and in bend sinister two roses all counterchanged.] "This comes
perilously close to having the appearance of marshalled arms. The fact that
the cross here is used as a charge rather than the default cross throughout
(which is considered an ordinary) saves it from falling afoul of XI.3. No
evidence was found by any of the commenters that crosses couped were used in
the same way as crosses throughout, crosses paty throughout, or crosses
engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms." |
| Masoning: | "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." January 2002 LoAR |
| Mullet of Four vs Mullet: | "we grant no difference between mullet of four
points and mullet of five points" March 1993 LoAR |
| Non-Ordinary vs Non-Ordinary Throughout: | In general there is a difference between an
ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary
throughout vs. its non-throughout version. May 1997 LoAR |
| Numbers Higher than Six (7,8,9,10): | It has long been our feeling that heralds can
count above six, when necessary: most have ten fingers. Seriously, period
sources blazon charges up to nine or ten fairly regularly when they are
primary or secondary charges (as opposed to charges "semy" or tertiaries)
and this should be permitted when the numbers are not excessive. (The
numbers seven and nine appear particularly frequently, possibly because of
numerological considerations.) August 1988 LoAR |
| Ordinary: | there is no difference between an ordinary and
its diminutive June 1990 LoAR Per precedent, "There is no difference between [an ordinary] and
[the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory. (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3)." |
| Ordinary vs Ordinary Throughout: | In general there is a difference between an
ordinary throughout vs. an ordinary couped, but not between a non-ordinary
throughout vs. its non-throughout version. May 1997 LoAR |
| Overall Charge: | A complex overall charge must not share the
same tincture as the ordinary it is surmounting. May 2000 LoAR |
| Passant vs Courant: | "there should not be a CD between passant and courant" &
"There is a significant amount of evidence implying that courant and passant
were used interchangeably in English armory." August 2001 LoAR |
| Pawprint: | "the use of a pawprint is one step from period practice." December 2005 LoAR |
| Peripheral Ordinary: | "Neither the chief, nor the canton, nor any
peripheral ordinary, can be a primary charge; otherwise, by Rule X.1 Lozengy
bendwise azure and argent, a canton gules would be clear of Bavaria, and
Gyronny sable and Or, a bordure gules would be clear of Campbell. That would
be unacceptable; therefore a peripheral ordinary can't be the primary
charge, even when it's the only charge in the design" July 1992 LoAR |
| Posture: | "Animate and inanimate objects are not
generally considered to have a meaningful posture comparison. When comparing
lions with swords, we do not give posture difference between these charges -
even when we compare the "sort of fesswise" lion passant to a sword
palewise, or the "sort of palewise" lion rampant to a sword fesswise." July 2003 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Regalia - Knight's Chain: | FROM LAUREL - A Clarification Regalia for the
Order of Knighthood includes (Tinctureless) A circular chain. This means a
circular chain of any tincture, not just gold. It was so designated by
Laurel in 1998, so there is nothing new here. Wreath tells me that
some have interpreted this to mean that any necklace, whether or not it is
unadorned, should be restricted. That is not the case. A necklace with a
pendant is not the same as a knight's chain and there should be no question
of improper use of a restricted charge in such a submission. August 2006 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Reremouse / Bat: | "The reremouse is both displayed and guardant by default.
Since this reremouse is displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its
posture has been explicitly blazoned for clarity." March 2002 LoAR
"Bats inverted have been explicitly allowed in the SCA in the past, as long
as they are identifiable" "We will accordingly consider a bat
(displayed) inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness")
unless documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry." The reremouse is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its
body in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable by
previous precedent: "The bat was not dormant, but was rather in its
natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this posture in period
heraldic depictions of bats, and for good reason: this posture eliminates
any identifiable aspects of the bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c,
Natural Depiction: ... Excessively natural designs include those that
depict animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability" |
| Robin, American vs European: | No difference is granted between an American or
English/European robin. Both types of robin are brown with red breast; the
underbelly is white for an English/European robin and red for an American
robin. A robin may be blazoned as proper no matter where it is from - the
tincture of the underbelly is artistic license. This robin has an argent
underbelly; it is a European robin. December 2006 LoAR |
| Roundel: | [Per pale and per saltire gules and argent, on
a roundel counterchanged a spider inverted and a bordure sable] No evidence
was presented, and none was found, for counterchanging a central roundel
over this field, or the similar gyronny field, in period armory. Such a
design will not be acceptable without documentation: "In general, we would
like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a multiply
divided field, such as barry or gyronny" August 2001 LoAR |
| Schnecke: | Discussion of Gurges vs Schnecke July 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Sea-Dog: | "The sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales
and fins. It often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always" January 2004 LoAR "a sea-dog and a beaver were considered distinct charges in
period and should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e." |
| Semy: | "Current precedent disallows two different sets of strewn
charges directly on the field." February 2000 LoAR |
| Sheep: | "Note that, in the SCA, the default sheep does not have
horns" November 2003 LoAR |
| Simple Armory & Maintained Charges: |
"Our practice has been to ignore maintained
charges when defining a device as simple armory for the purposes of this
rule [RfS X.4.j.ii.] and RfS X.2." May 2005 LoAR |
| Statant vs Courant: | "There is no difference between statant and courant, because
the evidence which has so far been obtained indicates that these postures
were interchangeable in period." & "Statant should thus not be given
difference from courant, because it was interchangeable with courant in
period - just as passant was interchangeable with courant in period." September 2003 LoAR |
| Sunflowers: | We hereby overturn the November 2000 precedent
and allow sunflowers proper to be registered. Just as a thistle proper can
have its tuft either gules or purpure, a sunflower proper may have either
brown or sable seeds. For purposes of conflict checking, the tincture of a
sunflower's seeds is not worth a difference. The presence of these seeds
does not count as a tertiary charge. July 2007 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Tails: | [Returning Or, three wolves passant regardant conjoined
by the tail in pall within an annulet gules.] "There were no period exemplars of either beasts conjoined at the tails or for this type of rotational symmetry to which any of the commenters could point. All of the tricorporate beasts we could find had a single head; conjoining at the tails does not appear to be period style." May 1994 LoAR
"Lions' tails, when nowed, are generally blazoned as such, although this
distinction is not worth difference" "As a general rule, there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal
monster) and a fish-tailed demi-quadruped." |
| Tierce: | "...on and after June 1, 1991, the College will no longer register
charged sides or tierces." February 1991 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Tower: | "There is substantial difference between a tower and a
properly drawn chess rook" December 2001 LoAR |
| Tree: | "...there is a type CD between a pine tree and a standard
round shaped tree." September 2002 LoAR "nor [a CD] for the difference between eradicated and couped." "There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and
eradicated" "by the precedent set on the February 1998 LoAR (p. 4, s.n.
Wolfgang Schwarzwald) "There is substantial difference between a tree and a tree stump." "a tree branch is not significantly different from a tree of the same
type" "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)." Discussion of Willow Trees vs other trees |
| Triangular Divisions/Charges: | Triangular Field Divisions & Charges webpage |
| Chevrons (inverted), Chaussés, Piles, and Chiefs Triangular webpage |
|
| Turnip Proper: | "Proper for a turnip is the top half of the
turnip purpure and the bottom half argent (with a somewhat wavy line of
division) with vert leaves; neither the purpure nor the argent should
predominate. The argent tip on a purpure turnip need not be blazoned, nor
does a purpure cap on an argent turnip as both are considered artistic
details." and "The turnip leaves should be about a quarter to a half of the
total charge. Due to the variability in size of the leaves, the tincture of
the leaves does not contribute to tincture difference. This is similar to
our treatment of a rose's slip and leaves." Note:
therefore a turnip "proper" is a neutral charge as neither the purpure nor
the argent predominates. February 2006 LoAR |
| Use & Display of Group Arms: | "The arms of a branch are reserved to the head
of the branch. In the case of a kingdom, principality or barony this is the
King, Prince or Baron. In all other cases it is the seneschal. Kings,
Princes and Barons may bear the arms of their branch upon a shield in battle
as if they were their own personal arms, so long as they hold their office
and no longer. Seneschals may not do so. All heads of branches may display
the banner of the branch to indicate their presence. At any event held in a
branch the arms of the branch may be displayed whether or not the head of
the branch is present, to indicate that the branch is hosting the event. In
grand marches the arms of branches may be carried by groups marching as
those branches. Otherwise nobody can display the arms of a branch as if they
were personal arms." July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter "Branches may register one or more badges which are to be
useable by groups or individuals belonging to those branches. A province
could register a badge to be used by a provincial mercenary unit, such as a
shield wall squad. A kingdom could register a badge to be used by all
subjects of the kingdom at wars with another kingdom to show their
allegiance." |
| Vêtu: | The chaussé line of division, along with chapé
and vetu , are different from other lines of divisions in that the
outer portions never contained charges in period. Thus we can also not allow
charges that overlap the outer portions. May 2000 LoAR It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé
or chaussé. |
| Voiding: | "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with
simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." RfS VIII.3. NOTE: All single edged ordinaries, which are the peripherals (chief, flaunches, base, bordure, etc), are affected by this rule, as they do not pass thru the center of the design. |
| Weirdnesses - Armory: | List of Armory Weirdnesses webpage |
| Widdershins vs Deasil: | "the in annulo placement visually dominates, and thus
subsumes, any specification of direction. Widdershins vs. deasil
is simply an artistic nuance of in annulo, and need not be blazoned."
[Clarification note: Thus there is no difference between "three X in annulo"
and "three X contourny in annulo".] August 1993 LoAR |
| Wings: | "[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change
to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second. [i.e.
there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged
creature.] January 1995 LoAR "we cannot see granting a CD between bird's wings and bat's
wings, even as a stand-alone charge." "we will follow the stated default from Parker and declare that an
angel's wings are displayed by default when the angel is affronty." |
| Wings Displayed & Wings Inverted: |
"There is also no difference for whether the
wingtips of the displayed wings are elevated or inverted. We expect that the
same policies that apply to displayed wings on displayed birds should apply
to displayed wings on winged objects: An examination of the development of the various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify "elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. (LoAR August 2001) June 2003 LoAR |
| Wings of a Different Tincture: |
"Just as we will give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings on a
winged monster, so do we give one
for changing the tincture of the flames of a phoenix." September 1997 LoAR
.
"As we give a CD for changing the tincture of the wings, there is thus a
CD for tincture as well as a CD
for the change to the field." October 2000 LoAR
.
"There is one CD for changing the tincture of the wings, which are half
the charge."
May 2002 LoAR |
| Wings That Hold: | Discussion on wing charges that hold other items August 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
| Wolf: | "there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and
thus, a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield are
not obscured by other elements of the design" September 2003 LoAR |
Name Precedents
| Lingual Weirdness Rulings: | AKA Name Weirdness Table webpage |
|
| Compatible Names List: | Collected precedents of SCA compatible names webpage |
|
| Compiled Name Precedents: | Collection of SCA names precedents webpage |
|
| Da'ud Notation System: | Representing non-ASCII characters in ASCII format webpage |
|
| French/Russian Names: | "Therefore, names combining Russian and French are no longer
registerable" June 2004 LoAR Cover Letter. |
|
| Group Name allowed as part of Personal Name: | "A personal name can include a surname of place derived from a Society
group name, although a household name cannot conflict with the name of an
official group (thus Ronald of Würm Wald could register his personal name,
but not Haus Würm Wald because that name would conflict with his Barony)." March 1988 LoAR Cover Letter |
|
| Header Spellings from Sources: | In most cases, header forms are plausible for period and so are
registerable. However, precedent (most notably regarding modern forms in Ó Corráin & Maguire) has ruled that header forms which are modern may not be registerable. (This has been handled on a case by case basis.) July 2004 LoAR |
|
| Hungarian Names: | Discussion of Hungarian Names June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
|
| Order Names: | Patterns of Order Names August 2005 LoAR Cover Letter |
|
| Russian/French Names: | "Therefore, names combining Russian and French are no longer
registerable" June 2004 LoAR Cover Letter. |
|
Information on Heraldic Practices
| Annulets interlaced: | Interlaced annulets are notes in arms found in the Randall
Holme roll (mid-to-late 15th C); the triquetra (under the name Tyrell knot) was used as a badge c.1520. |
|
Links
| Heraldic Myths | - | Information to clear up misconceptions involving SCA heraldry | ||
| Heraldry Resources | - | Articles, links and information on SCA heraldry | ||
| SCA Interests | - | Information on a wide variety of Art & Science subjects, Martial activities and Medieval resources. | ||
| New Member Information | - | Articles to help folks new to the SCA | ||