Heraldry News and Information
This is a page for the Book
heralds, and concerns new and relevant precedents, clarifications and rulings
related to the submission of armoury and names of individuals, households and
orders to the SCA College of Arms. It has been a while between editions of the
Rules for Submission, so I envisage this page as an important cross-reference.
Mainly, the news will be from
the latest official updates coming from Laurel and the College of Arms– for
instance the important clarification on bird postures and difference. However,
there have been a number of clarifications and pertinent examples provided by
experienced heralds via the SCA Heralds’ email list and I would like to
encourage other heralds to add notification of other changes.
Also, I will endeavour to have education
articles, or links thereto, to assist the book heralds
http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/education.html
Rules for
Submissions: Changes and clarifications from the monthly Letters of Acceptances
& Returns
Recent Changes, by Topic:
-
Heraldry
-
Names
Updates from the January to March 2008 meetings
Archived Changes, by Topic:
-
Heraldry
-
Names
Dating back to the January 2003 meeting
Heraldry:
LoAR - March 2008 From Wreath: Strawberries Proper
We have registered strawberries
proper 17 times, the earliest in 1973 and the latest in 2007. Over that
period the tinctures of a strawberry proper have never been defined. In
examining the emblazons of the registered armory, it is clear that the implicit
definition of proper has been gules capped vert. There has not been a
clear consensus on the tincture - or even presence/absence - of the seeds. This
is true even in the case of multiple pieces of armory registered to the same
person. At this time we are making the definition explicit: a strawberry proper
is gules capped vert; the seeds, if present, are generally sable or Or but they
count for naught. The seeds are an artistic detail; their presence (or absence)
need not be blazoned.
LoAR - March 2008 From Wreath: Saltorels (diminutive of
saltire)
The submission from Meridies of Clas
Hebenstreit's device raised the question of using the term saltorel in
blazons. Batonvert provided a nice summary:
The term saltorel refers to a
"diminutive" of the saltire, in the same way bar refers to a
diminutive of the fess. Since we don't consider "skinniness" when
judging diminutives, an ordinary's diminutive term is only used when there's
more than one of them: a fess but three bars, a saltire
but three saltorels. And for the vast majority of period examples [of
saltorels], that means couped.
Now, this was not the case in earlier
blazons. In the Bigot Roll, c.1254, the arms of Arguelms d'Olehaun are blazoned
l'escu de geules a cinc sautors d'argent (Gules, five saltires argent).
It was understood that the saltires were couped, simply by the fact that there
were more than one of them. (Brault, Eight Thirteenth-Century Rolls of Arms,
p.17) And I believe crosses were treated the same way: three crosses
were understood to be three crosses couped.
But blazonry style changed, and just
as six lions on a shield could be blazoned as lionceaus or lioncels,
so too did a special term come into use for multiple saltires (couped). Thus in
the Randall Holme Roll, c.1460, the arms of Alam are blazoned with iij
sawtreys of sabyll engrelyd. The diminutive of the saltire was applied to
multiple saltires... which were perforce couped, not throughout.
An examination of the registered saltorels
show that, in most cases, the term is in fact used to mean saltire couped
not a skinny saltire. The few cases that did refer to a skinny saltire
have been reblazoned as either saltires (when primary charges) or as saltorels
throughout (when tertiary charges). As for the saltorels couped,
they're on a par with lion rampant: redundant, but harmless.
LoAR - February 2008 From Wreath: Drawing Piles
There have been many calls recently to
return piles for not extending almost to the edge of the shield. Often cited is
the precedent:
Grimfells, March of the. Change of
device. Sable, on a pile within a laurel wreath Or, a spiderweb throughout
sable. Unfortunately, as several commentors noted, there is longstanding
precedent in the College for banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below
piles on the grounds that a properly drawn period pile would not allow space
for another charge to rest, in whole or in part, below the pile. [LoAR 02/1990]
Rouland Carre, Owen Herald, noted:
The notion that a period pile
necessarily goes all the way to the bottom, or at least very nearly all the
way, is simply not true. Early period piles did, but you can find 16th century
piles that did not. This is a holdover of the old SCA prejudice against Tudor
heraldry. (Like it or don't like it: either has nothing to do with whether or
not it is period.) I am a little surprised to see the claim in the Laurel
letter as late as 1990.
This is a different question, by the
way, from that of allowing a charge below the tip of a pile.
Owen cites the illustration of a pile
in Legh's Accedens of Armorie, 1576, fo. 68v, drawn 3/4 the length of
the shield. It is, however, the shortest of the Tudor piles we've found, and it
is in a heraldic tract, not an actual use of arms. Other tracts of the period
(de Bara, p. 28; Bossewell, fo. 76v) show piles which, though still not
throughout, are more like 6/7 the length of the shield; and among the Tudor
armory as actually used, there are ample examples of piles throughout (e.g. the
arms of Jane Seymour, Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 19). Given the
weight of examples, we encourage piles to extend at least 85% the length of the
shield; given the single, theoretical example of Legh, we will permit piles
extending as little as 75% the length of the shield, but will consider them a
step from period practice. If further examples of such "shortened"
piles are found, especially when used in actual arms, we will accept them
without treating them as a step from period practice.
We will continue to return piles with
charges beneath them, pending period evidence of such use
LoAR - February 2008 From Wreath: On Sheaves (multiples of
a charge bound together)
A submission this month (Marguerite la
fileresse de saie, Artemisia) raised the question whether a sheaf should be
considered a single charge or three charges. Recent precedent has been that a
sheaf of charges should be considered a single charge. While there may be
earlier precedents, the easiest precedent to find is from June 2001: "A
sheaf is considered a single charge, therefore there is only a single CD for
changing the type of the secondary charges." This was upheld in July 2003
(v. Bjorn Krom Hakenberg, Atenveldt).
Consider two hypothetical cases.
First, comparing Argent, a fess between two books vert to Argent, a
fess between two sheaves of arrows vert. Second, comparing Argent, a
fess between two books vert to Argent, a fess between two pairs of
arrows in saltire vert. Given the 2001 precedent, the first case would be a
conflict with a single CD for changing the type of secondary charges, but the
second would be clear with a CD for changing the type and number of secondary
charges. This treatment of charges seems inconsistent and nearly impossible to
explain to submitters.
In June 1990 Laurel ruled:
The usage "a sheaf" for
"two [charges] in saltire surmounted by a third palewise" is a
space-saving Society convention: it does not necessarily mean that the
[charges] must be counted for difference as a single unit any more than a sword
and a quill in saltire would be considered a single item. (17 Jun 90, p. 13)
This view of a sheaf of charges is
more consistent with how we treat other arrangements of charges. The 2001
precedent defining a sheaf of charges as a single charge is hereby overturned:
a sheaf of charges shall be considered as three charges in a specific
arrangement, not a single charge.
LoAR - February 2008 From Wreath: On Grenades and Fireballs
Commentary this month pointed out the
fact that proper has never been defined for a grenade or fireball,
despite the fact that both have been registered several times.
It is noteworthy that, while Parker
(p. 257, s.n. fireball) doesn't give the tinctures of a fireball proper, his
cited examples of its use (e.g. the arms of Ball) do use the term fire-ball
proper, which means it's defined somewhere. (Papworth, p. 835, gives
further examples of proper fireballs and their ilk. Not proven period, but
examples of the blazonry term, at least.)
In the Society, both grenades and
fireballs proper are hereby defined to be sable, enflamed proper,
that is, sable with alternating gules and Or tongues of flame.
Names:
LoAR - March 2008 From Pelican: Citing Dates from
"Index of Names in Irish Annals"
We request submissions heralds who
cite names from Mari Elspeth nic Bryan, "Index to Names in Irish
Annals" (http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/), to please cite
the dates given in the article for when the name is found. This helps the
commenters in evaluating temporal edge cases (and determining when they are
viewing an edge case).
LoAR - February 2008 From Laurel: OSCAR Commentary And Confidentiality
The question has been raised, how
confidential is commentary in OSCAR? That is to say, should the submitter be
told anything about its content?
My answer to that is an unequivocal It
Depends. Passing on the exact wording of comments without the explicit permission
of their writer may be grounds for loss of commenting privileges. If sharing
information contained in such comments would have a useful purpose (i.e.,
starting to look for permission to conflict, finding more supporting
documentation), then I see no reason why not. Otherwise, I would examine my
motives carefully, and remember that OSCAR privileges are exactly that.
But there's another consideration.
Commentary on OSCAR is not the final word; that doesn't happen until Wreath,
Pelican or in extreme circumstances I have spoken it. I would very strongly
discourage advising a submitter to take any action on their item while that
item is still in commentary, as the problem may quite possibly be solved by the
time the meeting is held.
I expect all commenters to not only be
sensible and courteous in passing on what is happening on OSCAR, but also
remind their clients that the decision has not yet been made.
LoAR - February 2008 From Laurel: Regarding Appendix H
On the October 8, 2007 LoPaD the
question was asked, "Should the articles found at
http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/ be added to Appendix H?".
This question generated considerable
commentary for and against, and I would like to thank all those who responded;
your comments were very helpful and often illuminating. The suggestions made
for other changes to Appendix H were noted by Palimpsest and will be brought up
for commentary separately in the future.
After considering the various
arguments I have decided that at this time no change will be made to current
policy regarding photocopies of articles from the MNA or of St. Gabriel
reports. As several people pointed out, once FELIX is up and running the
question would be moot anyway, as this will allow us to host articles from the
MNA (and elsewhere, of course) at the Laurel web site. (For a detailed
explanation of FELIX and its capabilities, please see http://heraldry.sca.org/articles/felix.html)
After that happens (and Codex is working on it in his copious spare time) my
successor, or hers, can revisit the issue.
LoAR - February 2008 From Laurel: Order of the Pelican
Table 1 of the Glossary of the Terms
notes that a chapeau, a pelican in its piety, and a pelican vulning itself are
reserved to the "Order of the Pelican". A submission this month
(Dorio of the Oaks, East LoI) questioned whether or not a member of the Order
of the Pelican could register armory containing a pelican in its piety. They
can: prior Laurels have implicitly assumed they might do so (LoAR of June
1988), and there has been no explicit prohibition since then. We hereby state
outright that members of the Order of the Pelican may incorporate the symbols
of their Order - the pelican and the chapeau - in their personal armory. The
Glossary of Terms will be updated to clarify these items are reserved to members
of the Order of the Pelican.
LoAR - January 2008 From Wreath: The Red Hand of Ulster
One of this month's submissions
(Éamonn mac Alaxandair, Æthelmearc LoI of September 2007) raised a question
about the Red Hand of Ulster, which the College's Glossary of Terms reserves to
"British Baronets". This isn't strictly accurate: the augmentation
reserved for Baronets and the Red Hand of Ulster are two different armories...
mirror images, in fact. The Baronet augmentation is a sinister hand apaumy
gules; the Red Hand of Ulster is a dexter hand apaumy gules. (In our defense,
we aren't the only ones who have confused these two: a number of authors, some
of them very well known, have made the same mistake. For instance, Boutell's Heraldry,
1970 edition, pp. 62-3, gives a dexter hand apaumy gules as the badge of
Ulster, and a canton or inescutcheon argent charged with a sinister hand
apaumy gules as the distinguishing badge of Baronets... and then on p. 201
explicitly calls the latter the hand of Ulster. So we're in good company, you
see.)
Both the Red Hand of Ulster and the
augmentation for Baronets are armories of the United Kingdom, so both should be
protected against conflict. The Baronet augmentation remains presumptuous; and
given that the Red Hand of Ulster is used on an inescutcheon in Ulster's arms,
its use on an inescutcheon should likewise be seen as presumptuous. But the two
armories are not the same, and we will take greater care in the future to avoid
conflating them.
The Glossary of Terms and the Online
Armorial will be updated to separate these two armories and protect them under
their proper names.