Note: In the O&A, alphyns are listed under Monster - Griffin

 "The College does not register names or armory which appear to claim for the submitter powers or status he or she does not have. In this case, the submitter is claiming human status. If the submitter can prove such, we will reconsider this name. Until such time, this name submission is RETURNED."
January 1991 Cover Letter

"A widget within an annulet will continue to be considered a primary widget and a secondary annulet, or a primary annulet and secondary widget, when those charges are the only charges on the field. Which of the two charges is primary depends, as always, on the emblazon.

When both are present in a design as part of a primary charge group, or where they would be expected to be a secondary charge, the widget and annulet will both be considered part of the same group."
March 2009 LoAR Cover Letter

“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.”
April 1985 LoAR

"This is being returned because Gules, ermined Or. is a plain tincture, and we do not register plain tinctures."
October 1998 LoAR

"Rising is not a defined posture for insects."
October 2002 LoAR

"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."
October 2002 LoAR

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."
September 2001 LoAR

"In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default"
December 2002 LoAR

"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."
December 2002 LoAR

"under current precedent, there is no difference for changing the tincture of the hafts of the axes"
February 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."
October 2002 LoAR

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"
August 2000 LoAR & September 2003 LoAR

"Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default."
February 204 LoAR

"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."
January 2004 LoAR

"When drawn clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly."
September 2001 LoAR

"In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default"
December 2002 LoAR

"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."
December 2002 LoAR

Discussion of Generic Birds
October 2003 LoAR Cover Letter

"There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough."
January 2002 LoAR
BUT...
""Normally a detail as small as a beak would not be grounds for a CD; however, RfS X.4.e states in part "Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." As a merlin/falcon close and a raven close are both period heraldic charges, in their period posture (close), and as period heralds consistently distinguished, in their heraldic art, the birds in these positions, we will grant a CD between a merlin/falcon close and a raven close."
August 2007 LoAR Cover Letter

August 2007 LoAR Cover Letter "A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is considered an unblazoned variant of close"
February 1996 LoAR & February 2002 LoAR

"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."
March 2003 LoAR

       Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile is considered "a weirdness" in
       the SCA - a single step from period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory
       is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from period practice and reason for
       return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03, R-Calontir]

Similarly, barring period evidence of such counterchanging, counterchanging a bordure over a chief is also a step from period practice."
January 2008 LoAR

"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."
July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter

"There is one CD, but not substantial difference, between a heraldic panther and a lion"
February 2003 LoAR

"there is only one CD between a heraldic tyger and a lion"
February 2003 LoAR

"There is no difference for changing the type of feline from a lynx to a natural leopard"
February 2004 LoAR

It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé or chaussé.
March 1998 LoAR

Nor do we charge the shod part of a chapé or chaussé field.
May 1996 LoAR

But note:

"Badge. Azure, a cross of four mascles argent within and conjoined to a mascle Or. This armory uses the same type of charge as both a primary and secondary charge. Some commenters felt that this was therefore not acceptable per the following precedent:

[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for violating the long-standing precedent of using two different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)

However, in the cited precedent, there was a reasonable ambiguity as to which mullets were primary charges and which were secondary charges, as the emblazon could appear to be an idiosyncratic rendering of five mullets of four points in saltire. In Francesca's arms, this is not a problem. The surrounding mascle is clearly in a separate charge group from the mascles which constitute a cross. Consider the analogous case of, on a lozenge shaped shield, Azure, a cross of four mascles argent within and conjoined to an orle Or. The orle would have a resemblance to a mascle, but there would be no difficulty in distinguishing the orle from the primary mascle group."
October 2001 LoAR

When both are present in a design as part of a primary charge group, or where they would be expected to be a secondary charge, the widget and annulet will both be considered part of the same group."
March 2009 LoAR Cover Letter

Heralds should note that using a widget within an annulet is not a step from period practice. Multiple instances of items within a single or multiple concentric annulets appear in _Stemmario Trivulziano_ (plates 178, 194, 225, and 352), Siebmacher (plates 63, 152, and 156), Humphrey-Smith's _Anglo-Norman Armory Two_ (page 335), and other heraldic references.
March 2009 LoAR Cover Letter

It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé or chaussé.
March 1998 LoAR

Nor do we charge the shod part of a chapé or chaussé field.
May 1996 LoAR

       Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a pile is considered "a weirdness" in
       the SCA - a single step from period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in armory
       is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered too far from period practice and reason for
       return. [Clef of Cividale, 03/03, R-Calontir]

Similarly, barring period evidence of such counterchanging, counterchanging a bordure over a chief is also a step from period practice."
January 2008 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."
December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter

"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."
SCA CoA Admin. Handbook - Section II.D.2. Branch Arms

"Baronies are not permitted to have crowns in their arms (they are not considered sovereign), so it would be inappropriate for a territorial baron to do so."
November 1984 LoAR Cover Letter

"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."
May 1999 LoAR

"He is also a court baron and thus entitled to bear a coronet."
October 2001 LoAR

"We wish to remind the College of Arms that being a territorial baroness alone does not allow one to register armory with a coronet."
April 2006 LoAR

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.
May 2005 LoAR

"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."
April 2000 LoAR

'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."|
November 1991 LoAR

"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."
April 2002 LoAR

"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."
December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter

Cotises are not co-primaries with the ordinary; they are a secondary charge group.  "The device has an entire sable cotise on the gules field. As cotises are treated as a secondary charge group, this violates RfS VIII.2, Armorial Contrast."  As they are a secondary charge group, they do get counted as a CD.
July 2000 LoAR

If there is another secondary charge present, the cotises get to count as another separate secondary charge group.  "Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent. This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent, with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge groups."  So it is possible to get 2 CDs from two different sets of secondaries.
March 2001 LoAR

"By current precedent, a laurel wreath is considered too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary."
June 1994 LoAR

"The counterchanging of the complex charges over the ordinary is visually confusing, and disallowed per Rule VIII.3. This interpretation has been in force since April 90; it was most recently reaffirmed in the case of the Shire of Blackmoor Keep, LoAR of Oct 92."
May 1993 LoAR

"The opinion of the commenting heralds was unanimous that a maunch is too complex a charge to be counterchanged over an ordinary."
May 1992 LoAR

"The Norse sun cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols cannot be registered as the sole charge."
September 2000 LoAR

This armory does not violate the long-standing strictures against registering a single abstract symbol. A tau cross is a standard heraldic charge in its own right.
November 2002 LoAR

"A cross of Cerdaña is an SCA-invented cross. Although mentioned as a minor artistic variant of a cross clechy in the registration of Ana's device in July 2002, the cross is not attested in period armory. Barring evidence for this cross as a period charge, we will cease to register crosses of Cerdaña after the August 2010 Laurel meeting."
February 2010 LoAR

[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.]
November 1991 LoAR.

[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."
March 1994 LoAR

"This is being returned for a redraw. We don't register single diminutives of ordinaries, and this is far too narrow to be a bend."
September 1997 LoAR

"However, in this case, the bend is, in fact, drawn unacceptably narrow (indeed, I suspect modern heralds would blazon it as a "ribband" or some such; it is certainly narrower than a bendlet. It needs to be redrawn thicker)."  The device was returned.
September 1994 LoAR

"there is no difference between an ordinary and its diminutive"
June 1990 LoAR

"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."
July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter

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.
March 2007 LoAR Cover Letter

"...only charges may be fimbriated, not field divisions."
May 2003 LoAR

"According to RfS VIII.3 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' This does not apply to tertiary charges."
October 1996 LoAR

"Per pale gules and purpure, a unicorn passant reguardant argent, armed and crined Or between three voided western crowns Or. This is being returned for violating VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability. It states Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design. This has been taken to mean that we void primary charges only; the crowns in this submission are clearly secondaries."
September 1997 LoAR

"RfS VIII.3. notes that 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated."
April 1999 LoAR

and 

[A bend vs. a bend fimbriated] "[There is] nothing for the fimbriation of the bend."
September 1991 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]
OVERTURNED BY:
It is now acceptable to have flaunches of different colors.
July 1980 LoAR

Flaunches voided and flaunches cotised are both non-period.
September 1981 LoAR

"The fretty is a charge equivalent to a single fret"
January 1998 LoAR

"While a fret is an artistic variant of fretty, in this case, the three frets {couped}are not equivalent to fretty as they are not constrained to fill a space such as a field or an ordinary."
September 2006 LoAR

"At this time we are explicitly ruling that there is _not_ a CD between gyronny and gyronny arrondi"
August 2006 LoAR

The Eye of Horus is an abstract symbol or combination of symbols whose meaning was not understood by Europeans in the SCA period. Unlike the Eye of Horus, the occasional word or letter found in medieval and Renaissance heraldry were part of the languages and symbolic iconography of Europe. Nor is this symbol a reasonable heraldic depiction of an eye; a heraldic eye is a solid charge where the Eye of Horus is depicted as a thin line. As such, this belongs to the category of artistic designs which are not compatible with heraldry.
August 2001 LoAR

A chi-rho is functionally a single abstract symbol. Although most two-letter combinations would not be so considered, the chi-rho has, through long use in religious symbolism, achieved an independent identity as a single abstract symbol. "Current precedent disallows the registration of solitary abstract symbols"
February 2003 LoAR

Widdershins vs. deasil is simply an artistic nuance of in annulo, and need not be blazoned." 
August 1993 LoAR

"Rising is not a defined posture for insects."
October 2002 LoAR

"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."
October 2002 LoAR

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."
September 2001 LoAR

"In the SCA, a bee statant has its wings addorsed by default"
December 2002 LoAR

"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."
December 2002 LoAR

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.
March 2007 LoAR Cover Letter

"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."
May 2002 LoAR

"We do not grant difference between single letters, even when they are in different alphabets"
(returning chi-rho against a feogh rune)
May 2008 LoAR

While a quaver is a symbol, it is not an abstract symbol for the purposes of the March 2006 precedent (q.v. Yamahara Yorimasa) banning armory that consists solely of abstract charges. Quavers thus can be registered as the only charges in an armorial design. We are hereby overturning the July 2000 precedent (q.v. Iohann se pipere) that considered a quaver an abstract charge and unregisterable as the sole charge in an armorial design.
May 2006 LoAR Cover Letter

"Yamahara Yorimasa. Device. Gules, in pale a kanji Yama and a kanji Hara argent. This is returned for redesign. There has long been precedent against armory consisting of a single abstract charge ‑‑ symbols that represent a phoneme or meaning, such as letters, numbers, runes, and kanji ‑‑ as well as against the registration of monograms. The rationale has been to prevent one submitter from having exclusive right to a symbol which should be commonly available to all. That rationale would, we feel, also apply to phrases made up from multiple abstract charges, if those are the sole elements of the armory. Thus, as we should not accept Argent, the letter L sable or Argent, in fess the letters LO sable, we should not accept Argent, the word LOVE sable. The same argument applies here: we cannot accept a design consisting solely of kanji. We therefore extend the ban on single abstract charges to cover any armory consisting solely of abstract charges, in any language (e.g., Japanese kanji, Norse runes, Arabic script, etc.). This applies whether the armory consists of a single word or a phrase."
March 2006 LoAR

No evidence was presented that hieroglyphs, as a class, are appropriate for heraldic use. They cannot be considered as acceptable charges analogous to letters or other abstract symbols, as their text meaning was not known during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. They may have been known as artistic designs, but as noted in RfS VII.2, "Use of an element in period art does not guarantee its acceptability for armory. Use of the Greek key design, which was common in period decorative art, never carried over into armory."
February 2003 LoAR

A chi-rho is functionally a single abstract symbol. Although most two-letter combinations would not be so considered, the chi-rho has, through long use in religious symbolism, achieved an independent identity as a single abstract symbol. "Current precedent disallows the registration of solitary abstract symbols"
February 2003 LoAR

"Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases, are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry."
January 2003 LoAR

This armory does not violate the long-standing strictures against registering a single abstract symbol. A tau cross is a standard heraldic charge in its own right.
November 2002 LoAR

The Eye of Horus is an abstract symbol or combination of symbols whose meaning was not understood by Europeans in the SCA period. Unlike the Eye of Horus, the occasional word or letter found in medieval and Renaissance heraldry were part of the languages and symbolic iconography of Europe. Nor is this symbol a reasonable heraldic depiction of an eye; a heraldic eye is a solid charge where the Eye of Horus is depicted as a thin line. As such, this belongs to the category of artistic designs which are not compatible with heraldry.
August 2001 LoAR

"If this is a single abstract symbol, it may not be registered as the only charge in a piece of armory."
August 2001 LoAR

"The Norse sun cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols cannot be registered as the sole charge."
September 2000 LoAR

"Current precedent disallows the registration of solitary abstract symbols"
July 2000 LoAR.

"Section VII.3 of the Rules for Submission requires that "Artifacts that were known in the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory, provided they are depicted in their period forms." The "W" depicted here is a modern, sans-serif form of the letter, having all the strokes of identical size. As such, it is not registerable."
March 2008 LoAR

"The device must be returned since it uses the line of division "wavy crested" which has specifically been ruled to be modern and not compatible with Society style (as of August, 1980)."
November 1989 LoAR

“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.”
April 1985 LoAR

"It is complex, having a complexity count of eight for three tinctures and five charges (yes, the maintained acorn counts)."
August 2007 LoAR

[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.]
November 1991 LoAR

[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."
March 1994 LoAR

Our rules require that the field be divided for it to have the appearance of marshalling or impalement. While the addition of a cross throughout does not remove the appearance of marshalling on a divided field, neither does it add the appearance of marshalling on a singly-tinctured field.
September 2008 LoAR

"We believe that the symbol of the Red Crystal should be protected to the same extent as the symbols of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are protected."
March 2007 LoAR

"We believe that the symbol of the Red Crescent should be protected to the same extent as the symbol of the Red Cross is protected."
July 2006 LoAR

"Red Cross. Restricted charge"
&
"The use of multiple gules crosses couped may be returned on a case-by-case basis if their placement or usage appears too evocative of the symbol of the Red Cross."
July 2006 LoAR

"This was submitted on a badge form as mon. We no longer distinguish mon from devices and generally require that they also be submitted on device forms."
August 1999 LoAR

[returning a Japanese stream] "The primary charge is not blazonable in standard heraldic terminology, as required by RfS VII.7.b."
September 1995 LoAR

"In general, Mon-like designs are acceptable in Society armory only if they can be blazoned in European heraldic terms - as though a period Japanese, visiting Europe, were attempting to register his Mon with one of the kings of arms. Tomoe cannot be blazoned in European terms, and so cannot be considered compatible with European heraldry. This submission, though a splendid Japanese design, may not be registered in the Society."
November 1992 LoAR

"Since commenters have found examples of the same device both nailed and not nailed in period, nailing...is not worth a CD."
October 2008 LoAR

Per precedent, "There is no difference between [an ordinary] and [the same ordinary] couped on fieldless armory. (LoAR 6/90 Symposium p.3)."
December 2005 LoAR

"This is being returned for a redraw. We don't register single diminutives of ordinaries, and this is far too narrow to be a bend."
September 1997 LoAR

"However, in this case, the bend is, in fact, drawn unacceptably narrow (indeed, I suspect modern heralds would blazon it as a "ribband" or some such; it is certainly narrower than a bendlet. It needs to be redrawn thicker)."  The device was returned.
September 1994 LoAR

"there is no difference between an ordinary and its diminutive"
June 1990 LoAR

"A digigrade paw print is a digigrade paw print to anybody other than a naturalist. In heraldry, we do not distinguish between paw prints of wolves, bears, cats, lions, or dogs, although you can add the specification to the blazon."
February 1983 LoAR

"Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or spur rowel."
January 2000 LoAR

"We have blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced because we believe that it is standard SCA practice to blazon this detail. Piercing of cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in some portions of our period, and is not worth difference."
April 2003 LoAR

"[A billet argent] This does not conflict with the badge of Rowena of Jorvik, (Fieldless) A delf argent pierced two and two. There is one CD for fieldlessness and another for the sizeable piercing. As noted in the LoAR of December 1999, 'After much thought, we decided that piercing is worth a CD when drawn large enough to be equivalent to adding a tertiary charge, as it is done here; i.e. when it is clearly visible and takes up much of the space available to it.' "
August 2003 LoAR

 They give the appearance of marshalling, per the following precedent:
"[Quarterly Or and lozengy azure and Or, in bend two <charges>] After much soul-searching, I must agree with the commenters who saw an appearance of marshalling in the device.  Rule XI.3.b states that quarterly may be used only "when no single portion of the field [appears] to be an independent piece of armory."  In general, complexity in any of the quarters makes it look like independent armory; for example, XI.3.b explicitly cites the use of multiple charges in a quarter as unacceptable.  The motif Quarterly X and Y, in bend two [charges] is allowable when the uncharged quarters are plain tinctures; we don't protect plain tinctures.  But when the uncharged quarters are complex fields, we lose that rationale; and the complexity then begins to make it look like an independent coat.  This, beneath all the subtext, is exactly what XI.3.b is meant to prevent." 
October 1992 LoAR

"The College does not register names or armory which appear to claim for the submitter powers or status he or she does not have. In this case, the submitter is claiming human status. If the submitter can prove such, we will reconsider this name. Until such time, this name submission is RETURNED."
January 1991 Cover Letter

"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."
October 2002 LoAR

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"
August 2000 LoAR & September 2003 LoAR

Note that this does not remove the issue of presumption. The combination of the surname Tudor with armory which incorporates half white and half red roses may be considered to violate our rules on presumption and pretense
December 2010 Cover Letter

"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

"Current precedent disallows strewn charges on only part of a plain field, even when the field has a "natural" division such as an ordinary (see July 1998 LoAR, Miriel MacGregor), barring evidence that such fields were used in period armory."  [Clarification Note: i.e. 'Per pale argent and argent semy of trees vert.' or ''Per pale argent and argent semy of trees vert, a pale sable.' Both sides of the division have the same background tincture, thus the design has a plain field.  If the design had a different tinctures on both sides of the division, one side being semed would be acceptable.]
January 2001 LoAR

"This is being returned because Gules, ermined Or. is a plain tincture, and we do not register plain tinctures."
October 1998 LoAR

"Lions' tails, when nowed, are generally blazoned as such, although this distinction is not worth difference"
November 2003 LoAR

"As a general rule, there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a fish-tailed demi-quadruped."
November 2003 LoAR

"This is being returned because Gules, ermined Or. is a plain tincture, and we do not register plain tinctures."
October 1998 LoAR

[No CD between a tree and a tree eradicated] "The reason for granting no difference for a tree vs.a tree eradicated is obvious if one considers the poor excuses for root systems found in many trees blazoned as eradicated. Without any period evidence that changing a tree couped to a tree eradicated was considered a cadency step, we see no reason to grant any difference between them."
July 1996 LoAR

[No CD between eradicated and couped] "In both cases there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the type of tree nor for the difference between eradicated and couped."
February 2000 LoAR

"There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated"
July 2000 LoAR  [This precedent overturned as result of July 2001 LoAR precedent listed next.]
                           [This precedent was reinstated as result of November 2008 LoAR precedent listed below.]

"by the precedent set on the February 1998 LoAR (p. 4, s.n. Wolfgang Schwarzwald)
there is a CD between a tree and a tree blasted."
July 2001 LoAR [This precedent overturned as result of November 2008 LoAR precedent listed next.]

"We do not grant difference for blasting: ... no difference between a tree and a tree blasted: 'There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated, as noted in the August 1994 LoAR... This is because there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves.' (LoAR July 2000)"
November 2008 LoAR

"There is substantial difference between a tree and a tree stump."
July 2001 LoAR

"a tree branch is not significantly different from a tree of the same type"
June 2003 LoAR

"There is a CD between a weeping willow tree and an oak tree or a generic tree."
 June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter

"There is not a CD between a white willow, which is the default willow tree, and an oak tree or a generic tree."
June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter

"There is a CD between a white willow tree and a weeping willow tree."
June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter

"Given that the weeping willow is unknown in period (let alone period Europe), its use is considered one step from period practice (a weirdness)." SEE BELOW [March 2011] FOR UPDATE.
June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter

Discussion of Willow Trees vs other trees
June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter

"[T]he weeping willow was cultivated in Andalusia in period, therefore we
will no longer consider its use to be a step from period practice."
March 2011 LoAR

"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."
July 1980 LoAR Cover Letter

It cannot be as it was blazoned, as we do not charge vêtu, chapé or chaussé.
March 1998 LoAR

"According to RfS VIII.3 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' This does not apply to tertiary charges."
October 1996 LoAR

"Per pale gules and purpure, a unicorn passant reguardant argent, armed and crined Or between three voided western crowns Or. This is being returned for violating VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability. It states Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design. This has been taken to mean that we void primary charges only; the crowns in this submission are clearly secondaries."
September 1997 LoAR

"RfS VIII.3. notes that 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated."
April 1999 LoAR

"we cannot see granting a CD between bird's wings and bat's wings, even as a stand-alone charge."
May 2005 LoAR

"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

"As blazoned, the words do not make a sensible phrase, but they are not required to make sense, only to be non-offensive."
July 2000 LoAR

[on a chevron ... the phrase "Non Sibi Sed Todo"] "Some commenters noted that no documentation had been presented for words on a chevron. Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases, are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry. Phrases in Arabic are not at all uncommon in Islamic heraldry, particularly on fesses. As a result, putting a Latin phrase on a chevron seems to be at most one step from period practice, and is certainly consistent with SCA armorial practices."
January 2003 LoAR

"Yamahara Yorimasa. Device. Gules, in pale a kanji Yama and a kanji Hara argent. This is returned for redesign. There has long been precedent against armory consisting of a single abstract charge ‑‑ symbols that represent a phoneme or meaning, such as letters, numbers, runes, and kanji ‑‑ as well as against the registration of monograms. The rationale has been to prevent one submitter from having exclusive right to a symbol which should be commonly available to all. That rationale would, we feel, also apply to phrases made up from multiple abstract charges, if those are the sole elements of the armory. Thus, as we should not accept Argent, the letter L sable or Argent, in fess the letters LO sable, we should not accept Argent, the word LOVE sable. The same argument applies here: we cannot accept a design consisting solely of kanji. We therefore extend the ban on single abstract charges to cover any armory consisting solely of abstract charges, in any language (e.g., Japanese kanji, Norse runes, Arabic script, etc.). This applies whether the armory consists of a single word or a phrase."
March 2006 LoAR

[Azure, on an open book argent the words "Carpe Librum" sable and on a chief Or three wolf's heads cabossed sable.] "This device is returned for a redraw; the words on the book are written with letters no wider than a (modern) single pen line and thus must be considered "thin-line heraldry". We suggest resubmitting using block letters.

This submission generated much discussion on the nature of words on books. The letters on Yale University's arms, Azure, an open book argent charged with Hebrew letters sable, have previously been ruled to act as tertiary charges. Laurel has also ruled "In general, open books may be drawn with numerous small writing marks as artistic license, the writing so small that it could not be read from any distance, but such writing would not be blazoned. [Branwen filia Iohannis de Monmouth, 04/02, A-East]".

The question becomes, when does the writing become so small that it cannot be read? In general, more that 10 or 11 letters on a single primary charge will be considered unreadable and will not count for difference; for a secondary charge (or multiple primary charges) this number will be reduced due to the smaller size of the books. More than two or three letters on a tertiary charge will be too small to read. In SCA arms, such small writing will not be blazoned. In the case of important non-SCA arms this writing may be blazoned even if it does not count for difference. Thus, the letters on Yale University's arms constitute a tertiary charge group while those on Oxford University's arms (DOMINUS ILLUMINATIO MEO) do not.

If resubmitted using thicker lines for the words, this device will be clear of the device for Roderick der Gelehrte, Azure, an open book argent, on a chief Or an arrow point to dexter azure. There will be a CD for changes to the tertiary charges on the chief and another for adding the tertiary charge to the book."
January 2007 LoAR

(also see Legal Name)

Withycombe, p. xii, lists Warham St. Leger (1525-97); Warham originated as a locative according to R&W (s.n. Wareham, p. 476). Withycombe, p. xii, also notes Lord Guildford Dudley (1536-1554); according to R&W (s.n. Guilford, p. 208) Guildford also originated as a locative. The same page contains other examples of locative-derived surnames being used as given names. Concerning the use of surnames as Christian names, Withycombe (xii) writes "The fashion became fairly general among the landed Gentry in Elizabeth's reign". That's certainly within period as her reign ended in 1603.

Other examples of surnames used as given names include /Artlington/, /Ashton/, /Kelham/, /Kellam/, /Kerry/, /Stocker/, /Smalege/, and /Nevell/ in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, /Dictionary of Tudor London Names/, and /Arcye/ 1573, /Atkinson/ 1583, /Bainbridge/ 1550, /Lambwell/ 1584, /Musgrave/ 1616, and /Richardson/ 1588 in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "English Given Names from 16th and Early 17th C Marriage Records".
July 2009 LoAR

Concerning double bynames:
"This name contains two non-patronymic bynames in Norse, which has previously been cause for return. Gunnvör silfrahárr (formerly Gunnora Hallakarva) found examples of people who were referred to using two non-patronymic bynames simultaneously. She provided the following examples and translations so each name may be viewed in context:

(1) Þórsteinn surts inn spaka (Thórsteinn Black the Wise) - Laxdæla saga (c. 1245), ch. 6. Ósk hét hin fjórða dóttir Þórsteins rauðs. Hún var móðir Þorsteins surts hins spaka er fann sumarauka. [Ósk was the name of the fourth daughter of Þórsteinn rauðr. She was the mother of Þórsteinn surts inn spaka, who found the "Summer eke".]

(2) Ari prests hins fróði (Ari the priest the wise) - Landnámabók ch. 83. Þórsteinn Hallsson var faðir Gyðríðar, móður Jóreiðar, móður Ara prests hins fróða. [Þórsteinn Hallsson was the father of Gyðríðr, who was the mother of Jóreiðr, who was the mother of Ari prests hins fróða.]

(3) Þórolfr Mostrarskeggr - Eyrbyggja saga ch. 3 (prepended and appended by-names) Hrólfr var höfðingi mikill og hinn mesti rausnarmaður. Hann varðveitti þar í eyjunni Þórshof og var mikill vinur Þórs og af því var hann Þórólfr kallaður. Hann var mikill maður og sterkur, fríður sýnum og hafði skegg mikið. Því var hann kallaður Mostrarskegg. [Hrólfr was a mighty chief, and a man of the greatest largesse. He had the ward of Thór's temple there in the island, and was a great friend of Thór, and therefore he was called Þórolfr. He was a big man and a strong, fair to look on, and had a great beard; therefore was he called Mostrarskeggr, and he was the noblest man in the island.

Given these examples, a name using two non-patronymic bynames in Old Norse is registerable so long as the bynames could reasonably be used to simultaneously describe the same person. In the case of the submitted name, the two bynames mean 'shrieking' and 'woman from the Orkney Islands'. These bynames have different meanings and could both have described the same person at the same point in her life. Therefore, this name is registerable."

May 2002 LoAR, sn Þórdís gjallandi eyverska. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/05/02-05lar.html
Repeated in the April 2010 LoAR sn. Þorfinnr inn svarti gylðir http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2010/04/10-04lar.html

(also see Legal Name)

Withycombe, p. xii, lists Warham St. Leger (1525-97); Warham originated as a locative according to R&W (s.n. Wareham, p. 476). Withycombe, p. xii, also notes Lord Guildford Dudley (1536-1554); according to R&W (s.n. Guilford, p. 208) Guildford also originated as a locative. The same page contains other examples of locative-derived surnames being used as given names. Concerning the use of surnames as Christian names, Withycombe (xii) writes "The fashion became fairly general among the landed Gentry in Elizabeth's reign". That's certainly within period as her reign ended in 1603.

Other examples of surnames used as given names include /Artlington/, /Ashton/, /Kelham/, /Kellam/, /Kerry/, /Stocker/, /Smalege/, and /Nevell/ in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, /Dictionary of Tudor London Names/, and /Arcye/ 1573, /Atkinson/ 1583, /Bainbridge/ 1550, /Lambwell/ 1584, /Musgrave/ 1616, and /Richardson/ 1588 in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "English Given Names from 16th and Early 17th C Marriage Records".
July 2009 LoAR

(also see Legal Name)

Withycombe, p. xii, lists Warham St. Leger (1525-97); Warham originated as a locative according to R&W (s.n. Wareham, p. 476). Withycombe, p. xii, also notes Lord Guildford Dudley (1536-1554); according to R&W (s.n. Guilford, p. 208) Guildford also originated as a locative. The same page contains other examples of locative-derived surnames being used as given names. Concerning the use of surnames as Christian names, Withycombe (xii) writes "The fashion became fairly general among the landed Gentry in Elizabeth's reign". That's certainly within period as her reign ended in 1603.

Other examples of surnames used as given names include /Artlington/, /Ashton/, /Kelham/, /Kellam/, /Kerry/, /Stocker/, /Smalege/, and /Nevell/ in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, /Dictionary of Tudor London Names/, and /Arcye/ 1573, /Atkinson/ 1583, /Bainbridge/ 1550, /Lambwell/ 1584, /Musgrave/ 1616, and /Richardson/ 1588 in Aryanhwy merch Catmael, "English Given Names from 16th and Early 17th C Marriage Records".
July 2009 LoAR

[A] period example of Courtney as a (masculine) given name: "Courtney Sprinckthorpe, of Newark, and Barbara Medopp, of U. 30 Jan 1603" from Nottinghamshire parish records at ancestry.com. This particular record is from Upton. The names are not normalized. The same event, also from Nottinghamshire but this time from Newark-upon- Trent, gives "Courtney Springthorpe & Barbara Midup 30 Jan 1603"."

December 2009 LoAR

There's a grey period baptism for Erin: Erin Johnson bap. 27 April 1634, East Kirby, Lincolnshire and an in period marriage: Erin Laurence mar. Richard Woodyat 22 June 1584, Bosbury, Herefordshire

"Thus, Erin is registerable as a given name in late-period English contexts."

December 2009 LoAR

December 2009 LoAR