ANSTHRLD - Palimpsest's Rules Proposals, 9/99

tmcd@jump.net tmcd at jump.net
Mon Oct 25 22:48:44 PDT 1999


Utterly without any permission whatsoever, I present Rouland's
proposed rules changes.  As Robin of Gilwell's Laurelling ceremony put
it: 'Roll the circus!'.

My only comments so far:

- - Copying Laurel *can* hurt.  She might get caught in the document
  feeder.
- - The rules could use minor buffshining.  E.g. "Such arms of pretense
  a placed".  I'd move the definition of "simple armory" up into the
  first paragraph.  (I *love* the simplification!  Fairfax, I want to
  bear your children.)
- - If you're putting X.2 up on the rack, please fold in the contents
  X.3 somehow and mark X.3 as "deleted" (so all previous X.4s don't
  become X.3s to the unnuterable confusion of all).  X.3 would
  certainly have to be reworded at least slightly.

Daniel de Lincolia

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

                                              Lord Rouland Carre
                                              Palimpsest Herald of Arms
                                              c/o Richard R. Hershberger
                                              841 Highland Ave. #344
                                              Jenkintown, PA 19046
                                              215-517-5085
                                              rrhersh at op.net
                                              25 September, 1999

Unto Dame Elsbeth Anne Roth alias Laurel Queen of Arms and unto the
College of Arms does Lord Rouland Carre alias Palimpsest Herald of
Arms send greetings!

This is the first rules letter since Dame Elsbeth became Laurel Queen
of Arms.  The previous Laurel, Mistress Jaelle of Armida, wished to
have a period a stability in the Rules for Submission.  Dame Elsbeth,
however, is interested in addressing several areas of potential
improvement.  Hence I anticipate that this rather lengthy rules letter
will lead to some changes fairly soon, although their exact nature
will result from the upcoming discussion.

Laurel also wishes to extend this discussion beyond the mailing list
to the entire roster of the College.  This letter is therefore being
distributed with the full Laurel packet mailing.  You may also wish to
distribute this more widely within their kingdoms.  Members of the
mailing list are of course encouraged to address the issues raised in
their regular commentary.  Those not on the mailing list are invited
to send commentary directly to me at the above captioned address.
Copying Laurel cannot hurt.  I will accept commentary via email (any
attachments should be in rtf to ensure that I can read them) but a
snail mail copy would be a very good idea, greatly reducing the
chances of your comments getting lost in the shuffle.

There are three topics on this letter.  The first two were thoroughly
discussed in the past but for various reasons were never implemented.
The third is a new proposal, but not one which is very
research-intensive.  These facts lend themselves to a relatively short
commenting period.  Please have your commentary to me by the end of
December, or for members of the mailing list no later than your
December letters of comment.  My hope is to recommend that Laurel
implement the two older items quickly.  The new topic I expect will
require several rounds of discussion.

Escutcheons of Pretense

This proposal was discussed in 1995-1996.  The problem it addresses is
that the current text of rule XI.4. Arms of Pretense is more
restrictive than period or modern mundane practice supports.  This
leads to unnecessary returns for presumption of submissions which do
not actually make any such inappropriate claims.

Arms of pretense are a form of marshaling in which a separate coat is
placed on an escutcheon in the center of the field of the underlying
coat.  In mundane practice this is a way for the owner of the
underlying coat to lay claim to the additional coat.  The standard
scenario for this in modern English heraldry is a man who marries an
heraldic heiress (i.e. a woman who, having no brothers, will inherit
her father's arms).  The man lays claim to his wife's arms because his
sons will inherit both coats (quartering them).  This claim is shown
by placing his wife's arms on an escutcheon of pretense.  Another
historical example of arms of pretense is the arms of Kings George
III, George IV, and William IV.  They bore the arms of the United
Kingdom with the arms of their Hanoverian possessions in pretense.
(The first two Georges had born these as a quartering.  The Hanoverian
arms were abandoned when Queen Victoria took the throne, for she was
prevented by Salic law from inheriting those lands.)  Such arms of
pretense make a claim: at the least to a coat of arms and at the most
to an entire kingdom.  This has since time immemorial been deemed
inappropriate for the SCA.

This is the current text of the rule:

4. Arms of Pretense - Armory that uses charges which themselves are
   charged in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense is
   considered presumptuous.

       Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or
       property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a
       display of armory associated with that claim.  Such arms of
       pretense are most commonly placed on an inescutcheon or
       lozenge, but may also appear on other geometric charges such as
       roundels, cartouches, etc.  For this reason, such charges may
       not be charged in such a way as to suggest independent arms.
       Such charges may not contain an ordinary that terminates at the
       edge, or more than one charge.

There are two definitions in this text which are significant to the
present matter.  The first is that arms of pretense are defined as
being placed on a variety of shapes: escutcheon (i.e. the standard
heater-shaped shield), lozenge, roundel, cartouche, etc.  This is not
consistent with actual practice.  Mundane heraldry, both period and
modern, places arms of pretense on an escutcheon regardless of the
shape of the underlying coat.  This is not obvious: one might expect
the arms of pretense to be on the same shape of shield as the
underlying coat.  A good illustration (albeit post-period) of how it
is actually done can be seen in Ottfried Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources
Symbol and Meaning p. 206.  This shows the 17th century arms of Marie
de le Tr=E9mouille.  The base coat is on a lozenge as is expected of the
arms of a lady.  It includes a coat placed in pretense on an
escutcheon, not a lozenge.  While I would hesitate to claim that there
are no exceptions, a diligent search has shown that this is
overwhelmingly the standard practice.

The second definition is that the potential arms of pretense may not
contain an ordinary that terminates at the edge, or more than one
charge.  This is an odd definition, since a genuine coat can contain
any whole number of charges.  The SCA traditionally and for good
reason assumes that fiction that a plain tincture cannot be a coat by
itself.  This fiction serves us well here, but otherwise if it looks
like an independent coat it should be treated as such regardless of
charges.

A third element of the definition of arms of pretense which the
current rules overlook entirely is that such arms are always placed on
a single escutcheon approximately in the center of the field of the
underlying coat.  (Of course if this underlying coat is combined with
others as a quartering, the escutcheon of pretense stays centered on
its own particular bit of the overall shield.)

These elements were put together in a proposed revision to rule XI.4.
What follows was the final revision of April 1996, which I once again
put forward:

4.  Arms of Pretense - Armory that uses charges which themselves are
    charged in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense is
    considered presumptuous.

        Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or
        property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a
        display of armory associated with that claim.  Such arms of
        pretense a placed in the center of the field and are displayed
[sic: "are" for "a"]
        upon a single escutcheon.  Generally, therefore, a single
        escutcheon may be placed in the center of the field only if it
        is both uncharged and of a single tincture.  For example,
        Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged
        with a plate has the appearance of pretense and may not be
        registered.  Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each
        charged with three roundels argent does not have the
        appearance of pretense, since it has multiple escutcheons, and
        is therefore acceptable.

Augmentations of Honor

This topic was also discussed in 1996.  The rules do not accurately
reflect current practice.  Indeed, the rules themselves do not mention
augmentations at all, and they are only mentioned in passing in the
Administrative Handbook.  This only raises difficulty because there is
a body of precedent by which augmentations de facto follow modified
rules of style and presumption.  The intent of this proposal is to
make the written rules consistent with actual practice.  This is
accomplished by adding two new sections, VIII.7. & XI.5.  Section VIII
of the rules addresses armorial style, i.e. how various elements may
be put together.  Section XI addresses presumptuous armory.

Here are the proposed rules additions from September 1996, which I
once more put forward for consideration:

VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor - An augmentation of honor must be
compatible with period armorial style.

     An augmentation is an honor bestowed by the crown, taking the
     form of an addition or alteration to the honoree's device.  While
     the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form
     is subject to the normal registration process.  Although the
     augmentation must itself follow the armory rules, it may on a
     case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original
     armory.  For example, Sable, on a chief argent a lion passant
     maintaining, in augmentation, an escutcheon gules charged with a
     cross throughout argent is acceptable, even though it breaks RFS
     VIII.1.c.ii. Layer Limit.  Gules, a lion argent, and in
     augmentation a canton argent charged with a tower Or is not
     acceptable, as the augmentation internally breaks RFS
     VIII.2. Armorial Contrast.  Also, since an augmentation is an
     earned honor, it may in some cases violate RFS XI.3. Marshaling
     or RFS XI.4. Arms of Pretense.  Arms in their augmented form are
     subject to the normal rules of conflict.  If an 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.

XI.5. Augmentations of Honor - Armory which appears to be augmented is
considered presumptuous unless the right to bear an augmentation has
been properly bestowed.

     Augmentations in the SCA typically, though not necessarily, take
     the form of a canton or an escutcheon.  Therefore, except as
     augmentations a canton or single escutcheon can only be used if
     it is both uncharged and of a single tincture.  For example,
     Gules, a canton argent is acceptable but Gules, on a canton
     argent an axe sable could only be registered if the submitter
     holds an augmentation.

X.2. Difference of Primary Charges

The entirely new proposal is to revise rule X.2. Difference of Primary
Charges.  Before describing the new proposal, a review of the history
of this rule might be enlightening.  This is one of the most important
of the conflict rules, and it is certainly the most modified of all
the rules.  The original version from when the new rules were
implemented ten years ago very narrowly defined simple armory.  It
disallowed any secondary charges except a chief or a bordure.  This
produced a veritable happy hunting ground for conflict-mongers
(including yours truly, during my ill-spent youth).  It rapidly became
apparent that a revision was necessary.  This came in 1990, allowing a
group of identical secondaries in simple armory.  The current version
was adopted in 1993, providing as it does a plethora of examples and
very precise definitions.

In recent months three proposals for further revisions to this rule
have been presented to me.  I am combining them into one revision, but
there is no reason why they cannot be judged separately.

The first came from Zenobia Naphtali Clarion, to require only the
submitted design be simple.  The current language requires both the
submission and the potential conflict be simple: "Simple armory does
not conflict with other simple armory if..."  Rules X.4.j.ii., the
only other conflict rule with a simplicity requirement for
eligibility, lacks this requirement.  (It's original version did, but
it was amended in April 1994.)  This produces the somewhat
disconcerting result that design [A] can be clear of design [B], yet
design [B] conflicts with design [A].  On the other hand this
asymmetry actively encourages simple armory by making it easier to
register.  Once one accepts such asymmetry, there is no obvious reason
to not extend it to X.2., where it will provide the same benefit.

The second proposal is a modified version of a suggestion made to me
by Kenrick Burne Brigantia.  It would for very simple designs consider
a substantial difference of secondary charges sufficient difference.
For example, Argent, a fess between three clarions sable would be
clear of Argent, a fess between three lions sable.  There are both
theoretical and pragmatic arguments for this change.  Theory, being
near and dear to me, comes first:

This does not seem to have been a typical cadency step.  This is not
to say that changes to secondary charges were never so used, but not
in such a wholesale fashion.  The change from Argent, a fess between
three clarions sable to Argent, a fess between two clarions and a lion
sable is a plausible cadency step, but not the complete abandonment of
the existing secondaries.  We traditionally grant pride of place to
the primary group, but we should remember that the definitions of
primary and secondary groups is an SCA invention.  While it is often a
very useful distinction, we should not let it place blinders on our
thinking.  The typical pattern of differencing seems to be that the
Argent, a fess between three clarions sable family would likely
consider the clarions the interesting and distinctive charge.
Alternatively, the base coat might have been Argent, a fess sable with
the clarions added by a later generation for difference.  Some other
differenced version of the base coat would be equally likely, such as
Argent, on a fess sable three plates or Argent, a fess between three
garbs sable or Or, a fess sable.  Just as these cadenced versions do
not conflict with one another, neither should those with substantially
different secondaries.

The pragmatic argument is that this will strongly encourage good style
and will open up a large amount of heraldic space at low cost.  As
things stand, they hypothetical registration of Argent, a fess between
three clarions sable precludes any further registrations of Argent, a
fess between three [charges] sable.  The current options to work
around this often resort to unlikely arrangement such a Argent, a fess
and in a base a [charge] or simply to cram a bunch of other stuff into
the design.  (When in doubt, add a bordure!)  The cost is low, because
as a practical matter the SCA owner of Argent, a fess between three
clarions sable is likely to be at least as emotionally connected to
the clarions as to the fess, and is therefore unlikely to be offended
by a fess between three widgets.

For purposes of this discussion I am restricting such an allowance to
instances where there is only a central ordinary and a secondary group
of identical charges.  There are less restrictive versions of the
idea, such as allowing any type of primary charge or allowing
additional charges such as a tertiary or peripheral group.  I will be
interested in opinions of what is the appropriate standard and why.

The third proposal comes to me from Alan Fairfax Rouge Scarpe.  It is
not intended to substantively alter the rule at all, but rather to
change how it is presented.  Fairfax has for some time been unhappy
with the current presentation of the definition of simple armory.  It
is non-intuitive, difficult to remember, and difficult to parse.  It
is my personal experience that for any but the most straightforward
questions I have to refer to the text and take great care to sort out
when a group can be charged, when it needs to be identical, and so
forth.  The current wording is extremely precise, but not at all user
friendly.  This makes it a barrier to the junior herald attempting to
master the rules.  Fairfax has been searching for a more intuitive
statement of the rule and has come up with one which I think hits the
mark: Simple armory is (for purposes of X.2.) that which has no more
than two types of charge directly on the field.

This can best be illustrated by taking examples from the current rule
and analyzing them under this restatement.  Or, three lozenges vert,
each charged with a mullet argent is simple under the current rule
because it is eligible for X.2.a., with only a group of identical
primaries.  The tertiaries do not make this non-simple because
"charge" is defined to apply to both charged and uncharged charges.
Under the restatement it is simple because it has no more than two
types of charge directly on the field.  Per chevron gules and argent,
two escallops and a roundel counterchanged is also simple under the
current rules.  It is ineligible for X.2.a. because it has a group of
non- identical primary charges, but it is eligible under
X.2.b. because it has only a group of uncharged primaries, which need
not be identical.  Under the restatement it is simple because it has
no more than two types of charge directly on the field.  Gules, a fess
argent charged with three mullets azure, all between three billets
argent, each charged with a lozenge azure is ineligible for X.2.a. or
X.2.b. by virtue of having a secondary group, but because both the
primary and the secondary groups are of identical charges it is simple
under X.2.c.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is
simple under the restatement because it has no more than two types of
charge directly on the field.

Looking at a non-simple coat, Vert, two mullets and a clarion argent
within a bordure Or semy-de-lys sable is non-simple under the current
rule because ti has secondary charges, making it ineligible for X.2.a
or X.2.b., and more than one secondary group, making it ineligible for
X.2.c.  Under the restatement it is non-simple because it has three
types of charge (mullet, clarion, bordure) directly on the field.

This is certainly a vast improvement in use-friendliness.  It states
in one line a principle which is easy to grasp and easy to remember.
Does it, however, accurately restate the current standard?  This is
what impresses me the most.  I see only two situations in which it
diverges.

One is with overall charges.  The current rule by implication does not
permit overall charges in simple armory.  The restatement by
implication does, since the rules treat overall charges differently
than charged directly on the field.  (See, for example, rules
X.4.b. and X.4.c.)  There are three approaches to dealing with this.
We can explicitly define designs with overall charges to be
non-simple, we can count them for purposes of this rule as if they
were directly on the field, or we can by implication consider them
irrelevant to the simplicity of the device.  For purposes of
discussion I wrote in the middle proposal, but I don't have a strong
opinion about this.

The only unavoidable divergence from the status quo is the situation
of a charged dissimilar primary group.  To illustrate, Argent, two
roundel and a delf sable, each charged with a fleur-de-lys Or is not
simple by the current X.2.b., but would be under the restatement.
This seems to me a small price to pay for such a simplification of a
difficult rule.

Putting these three proposals together, here is a draft version of the
proposed revised rule.  In light of the second of the three proposed
changes the current name of "Difference of Primary Charges" is no
longer appropriate, hence the new name.  I am also putting the current
rule at the end of this letter for the readers' convenience.  Note
that the revised version is about two-thirds the length of the current
rule, even with provisions added for the new concepts.  I believe that
this is the first time that a serious rules proposal would result in
less rather than more verbiage.

X.2.  Substantially Different Charges - Simple armory does not
      conflict with protected armory if the type of every primary
      charge is substantially changed.  If the submitted armory is
      simple, any primary charges are central ordinaries, and there
      are no tertiary charges, then it does not conflict with
      protected armory if the type of every secondary or overall
      charge is substantially changed.  Only the new submission is
      required to be a simple case in order to benefit from this rule.

          These types of changes were normally seen between complete
          strangers in blood, and were not usually used to indicate
          any form of cadency.  For purposes of this rule, "simple
          armory" is defined as armory that has no more than two types
          of charge directly on the field or overall.

          The following examples are simple, with at most two types of
          charge on the field: Argent, a fess sable.  Sable, three
          lions Or.  Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent.  Vair, a
          bordure gules.  Per pale gules and argent, a fess between
          three lozenges counterchanged.  Or, on a chevron between
          three clarions gules, three garbs argent.  Argent, a dragon
          sable, overall on a bend gules three plates.  Purpure, on a
          pale dancetty within a bordure semy-de-lys argent, a
          millrind sable between two roses gules.

          The following examples are all non-simple, with more than
          two types of charges on the field: Argent, a fess between
          two lions and a lozenge azure.  Vert, a chevron between
          three swords, a bordure Or.  Gules, a bend between two
          roundels argent, overall a lion Or.  Per bend argent and
          sable, a bend gules between a tree and a cross crosslet
          counterchanged.

          Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion
          sable.  Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent does not
          conflict with Vert, three lozenges argent.  Azure, a fess
          between three cups Or does not conflict with Azure, a
          chevron between three cups Or.  Argent, a dragon sable,
          overall a bend gules does not conflict with Argent, a sun
          sable, overall a bend gules.  In each case the designs are
          simple and the type of every primary charge has been
          substantially changed.

          Per chevron gules and argent, three oak trees counterchanged
          does conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, three fir
          trees counterchanged, because the type of charge has not
          been substantially changed; they both conflict with Per
          chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a fir tree
          counterchanged because not all of the charges have been
          substantially changed.  Vert, two mullets and a clarion
          argent within a bordure Or conflicts with Vert, three
          gauntlets argent within a bordure Or if the first design is
          the one being submitted, because it is not simple with three
          different types of charge on the field.  If the second
          design were the one being submitted it would be clear, since
          only the submitted design must be simple for this rule to
          apply.

          Or, a fess gules between three fleurs-de-lys sable does not
          conflict with Or, a fess gules between three crescents
          sable.  Vair, a bordure gules does not conflict with Vair, a
          chief gules.  Both cases are simple, the primary charges (if
          any) are central ordinaries, there are no tertiary charges,
          and every secondary charge is substantially different.

Finally, a few notes on the sort of commentary I am looking
for.  Of these three changes, only the second (sufficient different
from secondary charges) is really subject to period evidence one way
or the other.  Any such evidence presented will carry great weight.
The third proposal (restatement of simplicity) is based on the
assumption that we want to minimize any change in the end result of
what is and is not simple.  I will be greatly interested in any flaws
in my analysis of this.  For any of these proposal, a statement of
support or opposition is best followed by an explanation of reasons.
The more detailed and fact-based these reasons are, the greater weight
they will be given.

Here, for purposes of comparison, is the current text of X.2.:

2. Difference of Primary Charges -- Simple armory does not conflict
   with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is
   substantially changed.

       This type of change was normally seen between complete
       strangers in blood, and wasn't usually used to indicate any
       form of cadency.  For the purposes of this Rule, simple armory
       is defined by the following clauses.  The word charge refers to
       both charged and uncharged charges unless it is specifically
       qualified; a group of charges may contain one or more charges.

a. Armory that has only a primary group of identical charges is simple
   armory.

       Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion
       rampant sable.  Gules, on a pale argent three roses proper does
       not conflict with Gules, on a bend argent three roses proper.
       Or, three lozenges vert, each charged with a mullet argent does
       not conflict with Or, three billets vert, each charged with a
       mullet argent.  Sable, a chevron Or does conflict with Sable, a
       chevron embattled Or, because the type of the primary charge
       group has not been substantially changed.


b. Armory that has only a group of uncharged primary charges is simple
   armory.

       Per chevron gules and argent, three mullets counterchanged does
       not conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two escallops
       and a roundel counterchanged.  Azure, three maunches argent,
       each charged with a rose gules does conflict with azure, two
       escallops and a heart argent, each charged with a rose gules,
       because the primary charges of the latter armory are neither
       identical nor uncharged.  Per chevron gules and argent, three
       oak trees counterchanged does conflict with Per chevron gules
       and argent, three fir trees counterchanged, because the type of
       charge has not been substantially changed; it conflicts with
       Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a fir tree
       counterchanged because not all of the charges have been
       substantially changed.


c. Armory that has only a primary group if identical charges,
   accompanied only by a secondary group of identical charges, is
   simple armory.

       Each of the following armories is simple: Argent, a chevron
       between three wolf's heads erased sable; Sable bezanty, three
       millrinds argent; Gules, a saltire between in fess two open
       scrolls argent, each charged with a pen sable; Vert, three
       gauntlets argent within a bordure Or semy-de-lys vert; Argent,
       a rose azure between flaunches gules; and Argent, a greyhound
       courant and on a chief azure, a fleur-de-lys between two pheons
       argent.  Gules, a fess argent charged with three mullets azure,
       all between three billets argent, each charged with a lozenge
       azure does not conflict with Gules, a chevron argent charged
       with three mullets azure, all between three billets argent,
       each charged with a lozenge azure, since both armories are
       simple.  However, Vert, three gauntlets argent within a bordure
       Or semy-de-lys sable does conflict with Vert, two mullets and a
       clarion argent within a bordure Or semy-de-lys sable, because
       the latter is not simple: its primary charges are not
       identical.  And Argent, a chevron between three wolf's heads
       erased sable, a chief gules does conflict with Argent, a fess
       between three wolf's heads erased sable, a chief gules, because
       neither armory is simple: the primary charge is accompanied by
       two groups of secondary charges.



============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.


More information about the Heralds mailing list