[ANSTHRLD] Augmentation?

Tim McDaniel tmcd at panix.com
Sun Oct 31 19:53:13 PST 2004


Let's see if I can save Etienne some effort.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, David Knebel <herault2 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Specifically it was the Arms or an element thereof (read Charge) of
> Friedrich von Konigsburg.  They were specifically charged to consult
> with the Star Principle on what elements to use.

("With Star Principal Herald", please, or "with Star".)

OK, many thanks.  I had dim memories of some addenda, and those
qualifiers are critical -- converting something violating the rules
(following everyone else's synopsis) to something that's quite
unexceptional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I checked precedents on augmentations of arms today.  The most
comprehensive recent set is an extensive discussion in the October
2003 LoAR Cover Letter.  If N. has a badge, M. may register "<design>,
and for augmentation <N's badge>" if N. gives M. permission to
conflict.  It's certainly done a lot: several kingdoms even have
standard augmentations of arms registered that their subjects (when
given an augmentation) can register as an augmentation without needing
specific permission.

It doesn't mention the possibility of "<design>, and for augmentation
<N's arms>" (as opposed to N's badge).  However, the CoA rules make no
distinction between badges and devices, except

- one can have at most one device, but one can have more badges
- only a badge can be fieldless (or tinctureless)
- the armory outline on the submission form has a different shape

So, while I can't guarantee it, I'd bet that "<design>, and for
augmentation <N's arms>" would be met with a shrug and Laurel's big
green REGISTERED stamp, as long as N gives permission (and no other
rules violations obtain).  Were I Bordure Herald, I'd mention that it
was N's *device* and ask Laurel to cover the lacuna in the final
ruling, and Laurel might not even bother to do so.

Except that in this case N is dead.  However, it is a rule that the
heraldic heir of N (if N filed a heraldic will with the CoA) or the
real-world heir of N (otherwise) can dispose of N's heraldic property.
In this case, it's CoA Admin Handbook IV.F.5:

    4. If, upon the death of the owner of registered items in the
       Society, no heraldic will has been located, then the Personal
       Representative/Executor or the residual property heirs of the
       owner under the laws of the state of the owner's death have the
       right to give permission to conflict, release the items, or
       transfer the items as these heirs deem appropriate.

And I heard elsewhere today that Friedrich von Konigsburg's widow is
quite willing for his arms to live on with other people.  So she needs
to provide letters of permission to conflict for such submissions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the king's statement "or an element thereof", of course,
none of that is of any importance.  If there's no conflict (using the
usual conflict rules) between M's augmentation and N's registered
armory, even if there's some visual allusion or resemblance, N has no
protection.  Using just an element gives more options to produce a
good design than just including the whole shebang entire.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am pleased that the king said "charged to consult with Star
Principal Herald on what elements to use", 'cause that's the #1
misconception about augmentations of arms.  As the October 2003 LoAR
cover letter puts it:

    We remind [for the umteen jillionth time] the College that the
    form of an augmentation is determined according to the normal
    registration process: the submitter proposes the form of the
    augmentation and it is either accepted (or not) based on the Rules
    for Submission. The form of the augmentation cannot be mandated by
    the crown bestowing it. RfS VIII.7 states "While the right to an
    augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the
    normal registration process." The Board of Directors has upheld
    this policy ... (LoAR February 1988).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only further questions are aesthetic ones, like whether the
recipients are deserving and whether the design is a good one.  For
the first: the only two recipients I recognized were Duke Kein and Sir
Pendaran.  Each of them has a Lion, at least two peerages, and at
least nine other awards, so good luck trying to argue that those two
are undeserving!  On the other hand, augmentations have been extremely
rare in Ansteorra, and I think that that rarity has value for
"a present for the man who has everything".

As for the form of the augmentation: the augmentations I can recall
off the top of my head have something to do with the recipient's own
achievements: the Howard's augmentation for Flodden, with the Scottish
arms mutated; the Douglas augmentation of the crowned heart (with the
story of carrying Robert the Bruce's heart towards the Holy Land);
Nelson's Trafalgar augmentation; the Medici's augmentation of (a bit
of) France.  Or it has something to do with the grantor: the double
tressure in Scotland; a bend or whatever "of France" (that is, "on a
bend azure three fleurs-de-lys Or" or whatever).  So I'd think that a
retainer of the deceased, or a close friend, would be most likely to
have this particular type of augmentation.  I don't know how close any
of the recipients were to Friedrich.

But I must emphasize that those are aesthetic questions, of no more
value than someone saying "Daniel de Lincoln is too rude to deserve
awards" or "Should Herveus d'Ormonde have registered a red belt as a
badge?".  De gustibus non disputandum est (there's no arguing about
taste), and it's the king and queen who decide who gets an award and
the submitter who decides on the design to submit.

Danihel Lincolnia
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com



More information about the Heralds mailing list