An Tir Internal Letter for March, AS XXXVIII / 2004 CE

Lady Marya Kargashina lions-blood@antir.sca.org

March 30, 2004 Send thy comments here:

Jessica Smith-Carlock 5114 SE Holgate Portland, OR 97206 503-772-0002

---

Commentary on this Letter will be due May 14th, 2004.
(Send comments to Lions Blood Herald, information at top of this page)

* * * Change of April Lions Blood meeting venue * * *

The April Lions Blood meeting will be held on Sunday, April 18th, 1pm, at the home of Marya Lions Blood: 5114 SE Holgate Blvd, Portland, OR 97206, (503) 772-0002. Home has small children and a cat.
Directions: From I-5 to Portland take I-205. Exit onto Powell Blvd. and turn toward downtown (west). Follow Powell to SE 52nd Ave and turn left (there's a liquor store on the corner). Down 52nd to Holgate Blvd. (a Plaid Pantry on that corner) and turn right. House is on the left right beside the Plaid Pantry. Park on the street or across the street in the lot beside the Mocha Express and the Learning Center. Do not park in the Plaid lot, they tow. The apartment is #2 on the upper floor. From the Portland area: Get onto Powell Blvd. and head for SE 52nd Ave. Turn south and proceed to SE Holgate. See directions above for details.

The May Lions Blood meeting will be held on Sunday, May 16th, at the home of Christopher Queue Forchee: 7757 40th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98115. The house is in the Wedgwood area, East of Ravenna, North of UW.

Directions:
By Bus: Bus route 71 stops at the end of my driveway, tell the driver you want to get off at 80th St. Bus route 65 stops on NE 80th St & 35th Ave NE, walk 5 blocks east on 80th.

By Car: ** IMPORTANT PARKING NOTE **
The curb in front of my house, and the space directly across the street from it is a bus stop. Don't park there, even though the paint is faded. Easiest parking is on NE 80th St., on the side of the house.

From the South I-5 *Express Lanes*: Take the Lake City Way exit (it's a left-ramp off the freeway). Get into the Right lane of the ramp as soon as possible after exiting the freeway. Turn Right at the first light (NE 80th St). Note: NE 80th does not go through to my house, there's stuff in the way, so... Turn Right at the first 4-way stop (20th Ave NE.). Turn Left at the first light (NE 75th St). Follow the "From NE 75th St" directions, below.

From the South via I-5 (incl. 520 & 90): Take I-5 to exit 171 (522, Bothell). Stay to the right hand of the ramp. Just as the ramp goes around a bend there will be an exit to your Right. Take it. Merge into 73rd heading East (only option). Stop at the stop, stay on 73rd. Turn Left at the next stop sign, onto 12th, heading North again. Turn Right at the light, onto NE 75th St., heading East again. Follow the "From NE 75th St" directions, below.

From the North via I-5: Take the exit for 80th St. & 85th St. Follow the signs for 80th St. East Bound, turning left at the end of the ramp. You will cross over I-5. Continue on 80th St. for a while. Turn Right (south) @ the 4-way stop on 20th Turn Left (east) @ the first light (NE 75th St.). Follow the "From NE 75th St" directions, below.

From NE 75th St: Turn Left at the 4-way stop (onto 40th Ave NE). Go two short "blocks." The house will be on your Left just as the school yard ends, on the corner with NE 80th St. If you completely pass the school yard, or cross over 80th St., you've gone too far.

---

Greetings from Lions Blood.

Unfortunately, I will not be going to Symposium this year. I'll miss being there.

The December LoAR has no results from An Tir. This resulted from a submission packet late to Laurel because of Lions Blood office turnover confusion. The results from the An Tir June IL/August LoI will be on the January LoAR. Nothing has been lost, it has simply been delayed.

Marya

---

Last month we brought you all the An Tir results from the October and November LoARs. This month we bring you Words of Wisdom from the Sovereigns of Arms as printed in the October, November, and December cover letters. Some of this information is pertinent to submissions on this month's IL, so read with care.

From the Cover Letter to the October 2003 LoAR:

From Laurel: New Precedents Available

The precedents of Elsbeth Anne Roth, Laurel, and Pietari Pentinpoika Uv, Pelican, have been completed. They are available on-line on the Laurel precedents Web page, http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents.html, and are available in print for $7.00 through Free Trumpet Press West / SCA Marketplace.

The precedents of our tenure are available in an ongoing draft form on the Web, and may be accessed through a link on the aforementioned Laurel Web page. The latest update information for these draft precedents is given at the top of each of the subpages for armory and name precedents. (The names and armory precedents may not be updated at the same time, so check each subpage individually).

From Wreath: Suns and Moons

There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.

From Wreath: Generic Birds

In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird. Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds, penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other alternative.

We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds. Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which discusses this matter in detail, including citations in commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art.

From Wreath: Augmentations

This was a busy month for augmentations. An augmentation is one of the highest honors bestowed by the SCA: it behooves us to make policies for augmentations as clear as possible, so that the excellent people receiving the honor have as little difficulty with registering augmentations as possible. Therefore, while the ensuing discussion mostly addresses issues raised by the augmentations this month, it also addresses some other general issues and policies that arise frequently when considering augmentations.

We particularly direct kingdom heralds to the sections on "Kingdom Badges that are Designated as an Augmentation" and "Augmentations and Appropriate Content", as they set forth some previously unstated policies and interpretations.

Who Specifies the Form of an Augmentation

We remind the College that the form of an augmentation is determined according to the normal registration process: the submitter proposes the form of the augmentation and it is either accepted (or not) based on the Rules for Submission. The form of the augmentation cannot be mandated by the crown bestowing it. RfS VIII.7 states "While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration process." The Board of Directors has upheld this policy:

[Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue", i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that the College may not be compelled to register that which is in violation of its existing rules, this submission is now formally returned. (LoAR February 1988)

Augmentations and General Paperwork

If a person's device changes at the same time that an augmentation is added, the armorial changes need to be performed in two separate submissions actions, each with its own set of submission forms: one for the change of the device (without the augmentation) and one depicting the changed device and adding the augmentation: "... as we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000).

Augmentations and General Conflict Issues

RfS VIII.7 states, "If [the augmentation] has the appearance of being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of armorial conflict." This means that the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a separate piece of armory.

Note that the converse is not true: it is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing augmentations that have the appearance of being independent armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation should not be used separately from the arms."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's augmentation.

Note also that, per RfS VIII.7, it is not necessary to check augmentations for conflict when they do not have the appearance of an independent display of armory. If someone's augmentation takes the form ... and for augmentation, in chief a rose argent, the rose in chief does not have the appearance of an independent display of armory, and one does not have to check it for conflict as if it were (Fieldless) A rose argent.

We also remind the College that augmented arms are to be checked for conflict both with and without the augmentation: "Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against both versions" (LoAR September 1992, pg. 26).

Augmentations and Letters of Permission

The SCA has previously registered augmentations that appeared to be independent armory and were in conflict with - or identical to - a badge owned by a kingdom or some other entity. In these cases, it has been necessary for the person with the augmentation to have a letter of permission from the owner of the badge in order to register that augmentation. As noted in the LoAR of September 1995 regarding an augmentation (which was in conflict with armory belonging to a kingdom):

For the ... conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It has always been the policy of the College not to assume that permission is given even if explicitly stated in a LoI (which was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written letter of permission to conflict.

Such permission was explicitly stated to be present in the first of a (relatively) long line of augmentations from the crown of Caid where the recipient elected to use the Caidan War Banner on a charged canton or escutcheon, per the LoAR of October 1995: "A letter of permission from the Crown of Caid for the use of the War Banner of Caid as an augmentation has been received by the Laurel office." These letters of permission to conflict have not always been mentioned in the LoAR, but are present with the paperwork.

Kingdom Badges That Are Designated as an Augmentation

In the case where a kingdom has a badge designated as an augmentation, it seems appropriate to rule that a person or entity with an augmentation from that kingdom may be assumed to have permission for his/her/its augmentation to conflict with the specifically-designated augmentation badge. Kingdoms that already have badges that are serving as an augmentation should strongly consider adding the "augmentation" designation to those badges, to cut down on subsequent paperwork with letters of permission to conflict.

A kingdom badge that is designated as an augmentation may not imply any particular rank or status for the bearer. It is appropriate for a kingdom to consider adding an "augmentation" designation to a populace badge, ensign, war banner, or a previously undesignated badge without reserved charges. It is not appropriate to add an "augmentation" designation to an order, award, or office badge, or to an undesignated badge with a reserved charge.

The augmentation of the Kingdom of Meridies, (Fieldless) Three mullets one and two argent, was registered in the LoAR of March 1996 with the following comments: "This is an augmentation of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it deems worthy. It's [sic] purpose is not the same as a fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be displayed on a field by the recipients." These LoAR comments referred to the fact that the armory contained charges that were not conjoined. Then, as now, such armory was illegal style on a fieldless badge per RfS VIII.5. But, because an augmentation will always be displayed on a field, a designated augmentation may break these fieldless style rules. The other constraints in RfS VIII.5 could also be broken for an augmentation, so a kingdom could register an augmentation of (Fieldless) a bordure embattled ... or (Fieldless) a bend charged with ..., even though these would not be registerable designs for any other type of fieldless armory.

It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that the kingdom would have. As an example, hypothesize that the Kingdom of Atlantia chose to designate its badge, (Fieldless) A unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent, as an augmentation. The SCA's current policies do not allow new registrations of unicornate natural seahorses without the use of the grandfather clause. A hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could place the designated augmentation on any suitable place on his device. If he already had an uncharged canton Or on his device, he could create the augmentation for augmentation, on the canton a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent. However, a hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could not use the designated badge to create the augmentation for augmentation, on a canton Or a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure finned argent. This augmentation would not be identical to the designated augmentation, and thus, the kingdom's grandfathering would not extend to this augmentation.

Augmentations and Appropriate Content

The September 1995 LoAR ruled in general that no piece of armory could be exactly duplicated as an augmentation: "We have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed." However, this portion of ruling has been overruled by the October 1995 acceptance of the Caidan War Banner as an augmentation, and by successive similar registrations. At this point, in some cases augmentations may be identical to armory belonging to a group (or an individual). However, the point that an augmentation must not appear to be a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI) is one that must be considered whenever an augmentation is registered.

Precedent notes that, in at least some cases, the use of a badge of office as part of an augmentation may give an incorrect implication that the holder of the augmentation is the holder of the office. Since that statement will not always be true, the augmentation is not allowed in that circumstance. The LoAR of September 1995 dealt with an augmentation where the owner of the augmentation quartered her original coat with a quartering that was a tinctured version of a kingdom herald's seal. That ruling read, in the immediately pertinent part:

The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ... Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons... [one reason that] it is troublesome is that it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current ... Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI).

We also believe that any augmentation that incorporates the badge of an office in a fashion that resembles an independent display of arms is likely to give a very strong implication that the submitter holds that office, even outside of the context of marshalling. We note that there is no pattern of use of badges of office used in the SCA as augmentations. Only one such augmentation has been registered (a sinister canton of the arms of the Exchequer of the West registered in 1979). Therefore, we rule that it is not permissible for an augmentation to exactly duplicate a badge of office, even with a letter of permission.

Precedent holds that individuals may not register an augmentation that uses an inappropriate reserved charge, as it would be such a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess". Per the LoAR of April 1992: "Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them."

It also seems appropriate to consider whether an augmentation may ever duplicate the badge of an order or award. Such an augmentation gives a strong implication that the owner of the augmentation is a member of that order, or a holder of that award. We at this time rule that such an augmentation cannot be registered if the owner of the augmentation is not a member of that order or does not hold that award, even if he has a letter of permission from the branch that owns the badge. We leave open the question of whether it is ever appropriate to register an augmentation that is identical to an award or order badge.

From the Cover Letter to the November 2003 LoAR:

From Laurel: Got Bids for KWHS 2005?

It's time to put in bids for Known World Heraldic Symposium in 2005. Please provide your bids to the entire College of Arms. Please have your bids to the College by May 1, 2004, so that commentary may be received and a decision may be announced at KWHS 2004. The Laurel Web site contains a useful article on bidding and running a Known World Heraldic Symposium: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/kwhsart.html.

From Wreath: Badgers and Brocks

This month, some questions were raised about the tincture of a previously registered SCA brock proper. The tincture of a brock (or badger) proper is not clearly defined in SCA or real-world heraldic practice. We here state explicitly that the SCA has no default proper tincture for brocks or badgers. In this LoAR, we have reblazoned the few pieces of existing SCA armory that were blazoned using brocks or badgers proper.

From Wreath: Birds and Substantial Difference

This month we were called upon to make a number of rulings concerning difference between very different types of birds. After much thought, and discussion with Evan Wreath-designate, we have formulated the following policy.

Policies concerning birds and substantial difference need to be built upon previous policies concerning birds and significant difference. An important ruling on the topic is found in the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR. That ruling was entitled On Owls and Eagles, but it also spoke more generally concerning difference for birds. The pertinent summary portions of that ruling read as follows:

The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle...

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness" [step from standard period practice].

In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when (a) [sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference between a popinjay and a hawk).

In some cases, it is appropriate for very different types of bird to be given substantial difference from each other. This parallels the SCA's precedents for other kinds of similarly-formed, but nonetheless very different, animate charges: bulls and lions were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of July 2001, dragons and griffins were ruled substantially different in the same LoAR, zebras and stags were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001, unicorns and wolves were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of March 1994, and ferrets and hedgehogs were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of September 1991.

In order for two birds to be considered substantially different from each other, it is necessary for the following conditions to apply, analogous to the criteria listed in the January 2000 Cover Letter for significant difference between birds:

1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of course also have been considered different in period, or they would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).
2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be in a posture which was period for that type of bird.
3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be drawn correctly.
4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that were consistently very different from each other throughout period heraldry.

Concerning criterion 2, remember that a bird may be in a period posture without being in a default posture. Ravens are sometimes found in the rising posture in period, although their default posture is close. Swans are found in the close posture in period, although their default posture is rousant (synonymous with rising).

It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are found in the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January 2000 Cover Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than eagles) in the displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and are not eligible for substantial difference - unless documentation is provided showing that the particular type of (non-eagle) bird is frequently found in the displayed posture in period.

Here are a few generalizations concerning bird posture to be used in conjunction with criterion 2 above. In addition, see the attachment to this LoAR titled "Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry."

• Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period posture when it is close.
• If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that posture.
• Period birds that are reguardant are considered a standard posture variant of period birds that are not reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make the same assumption about guardant.
• Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to sinister posture to be period.

On examining the types of birds found in period armory, and how they were used, certain categories of bird type become apparent. These categories are:

• Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy bodies, webbed feet.
• Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks, medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
• Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail, partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details (combs, crests).
• "Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium legs, plain tails.

Not all period birds are found in the categories above. For example, while many popinjays (parrots) are drawn as "regular-shaped" birds in period (often indistinct from a green crow with red legs and bill), some of the more naturalistic drawings of popinjays have such pronounced tails that popinjays, for the moment, been left out of any of these categories.

Substantial difference relates to these categories of birds as follows:

• Birds within a category are not substantially different from each other. They may be (but are not always) significantly different from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e. Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is significant difference between an owl (close guardant) and a dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the same category, there is no difference between a falcon rising and an eagle rising.
• Birds in different categories are given substantial difference from each other as long as they meet the general requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped" bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped" heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a "regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped" dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a "regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill cock is not.
• Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories above must have their eligibility for substantial difference determined on a case by case basis. In particular, SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry, such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case basis.

Society Pages

Evan da Collaureo, incoming Wreath King of Arms, will be made a Companion of the Order of the Pelican on February 21.

From the Cover Letter to the December 2003 LoAR:

From Laurel: RfS X.4.j.ii

After due consideration and with the thoughtful advice of the College of Arms, we are amending the Rules for Submission section X.4.j.ii. This change is limited to X.4.j.ii and does not modify X.4.j.i. Thus, it only redefines the cases in which substantially changing the type of a group of charges on charges can give a clear difference. The main purpose of this rules change is to simplify this rule and make it easier to apply.

We are redefinining "simple case" to match the current phrasing of X.2: "has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges". In addition, we are removing the term "simple" from X.4.j.ii, because it has been confusing to use the term "simple" in two parts of the armory conflict rules (RfS X.2 and RfS X.4.j.ii). There is one additional change: X.4.j.ii no longer requires the the group of charges on a charge to be composed of identical charges. But it does continue to require that the type of the entire group of charges on a charge be changed to grant a CD under this rule.

RFS X.4.j.ii is changed to read:

ii. For armory that has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges, substantially changing the type of all of a group of charges placed entirely on an ordinary or other suitable charge is one clear difference. Only the new submission is required to meet these conditions in order to benefit from this clause. A charge is suitable for the purposes of this rule if (a) it is simple enough in outline to be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges.

Sable, on a pale argent three lozenges sable has one clear difference from Sable, on a pale argent three ravens sable. Or, on a heart vert a pheon argent has one clear difference from Or, on a heart vert a cross moline argent. Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert a spear argent has one clear difference from Argent, on a fess azure between two pine trees vert a rose argent. Or, on a chevron between two millrinds and a lion passant gardant sable three escallops argent does not have a clear difference from Or, on a chevron between two millrinds and a lion passant gardant sable three crosses crosslet argent because there are more than two types of charges directly on the field. Gules, a lion rampant, overall a bend argent semy-de-lis sable does not have a clear difference from Gules, a lion rampant, overall a bend argent billetty sable because there is an overall charge. Gules, on a pale Or a crescent between two fleurs-de-lis gules has a clear difference from Gules, on a pale Or three mullets gules. However, it does not have a clear difference from Gules, on a pale Or three crescents gules, because the type of all of the tertiary charges has not been changed.

Argent, a lion rampant gules charged with a cross crosslet Or does not have a clear difference from Argent, a lion rampant gules charged with a heart Or because the lion is too complex in outline to be voided. Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a cross crosslet sable does not have a clear difference from Gules, on a mullet of six points Or a pellet because the interior of a correctly drawn mullet of six points is too small.

As a new submission, Argent, a lion rampant and on a chief gules three fleurs-de-lis argent does not conflict with Argent, a lion rampant between three mullets and on a chief gules three crosses crosslet argent, even though the latter does not meet the conditions of this rule. The new armory has only two types of charges directly on the field, so there is one clear difference for substantially changing the type of the tertiary charges; the second is for removing the mullets (see RfS X.4.b). If, however, the second armory were new and the first already registered, the second armory would conflict with the first; as there are more than two types of charges directly on the field, there would be just one clear difference for adding the mullets.

We were pleased to see the discussion and research that was given to this question and commend all who participated. Special thanks to Siren for coordinating the discussions on this rule change.

From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

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

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

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

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

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

Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms registered for the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider following period practice and to discontinue the use of the armory.

From Laurel: Help Wanted for the Heraldic Packet Service

The Heraldic Packet Service (alias SquidPak) provides copying and distribution of heraldic correspondence to various realms in the Known World. Its primary focus is on providing inexpensive mailing to realms outside the USA (Drachenwald, Ealdormere, Lochac). Currently, Æthelmearc, Ansteorra, Atlantia, Drachenwald, Ealdormere, Lochac, and the Outlands make use of the service. The Heraldic Packet Service is a private service that is not directly associated with the College of Arms or any realm's College of Heralds.

Dave Montuori is seeking volunteer(s) to take over at least the production side of the "SquidPak" heraldic packet service, so that Dave's SCA persona may devote more time to armory decisions over the next three years. The successful candidate need not be a herald, though some familiarity with the College of Arms submissions process is a plus; training in that aspect of the job will be provided if needed.

The primary attribute being looked for is the temperament suitable for the position of Kingdom Chronicler, as this job is remarkably similar to that of the editor of a kingdom newsletter. The requirements of the job are:

• to collect contributions to the packet from heralds in the various member realms (almost every contribution is sent electronically);
• print out masters of electronic contributions;
• make the requisite number of copies of each contribution;
• label and stamp envelopes for each member of the CoA Mailing List;
• stuff each envelope with one copy of each packet contribution, then seal and mail the envelopes. (Hand delivery is acceptable for local deliveries or on special occasions such as KWHS.)

Errors in copying, collating, or stuffing are Frowned Upon, and you must be able to get the packet out every month without fail (and not on the last day of the month if at all possible). You may also be responsible for keeping track of costs for each contributing realm, and sending out periodic invoices for reimbursement.

Interested parties should contact Dave, whose contact information is in the Roster; please send all e-mail inquiries about this job to squidpak@scadian.net to ensure that your ee-mail does not get lost in the spam-stack.

Society Pages

Mistress Shauna of Carrick Point, Laurel-designate, was made a baroness of the court of Artemisia at Estrella War on February 14.

RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY LIONS BLOOD MEETING:

The February meeting was held at the home of Aedan Mountains and attended by Marya Lions Blood, Ciaran Goutte de Sang, Meadhbha Dragon's Mist, Teceangl Ounce, Laurence of Damascus and Elsa Haakonsdotter.

The following names and armory have been sent to Laurel (February LoI) --

The following were returned for further work:

NEW SUBMISSIONS:

Return to the IL Archive Page