Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:28:28 -0700 From: Zenobia Subject: [ATH] Augmentation of Arms Quoth EB: > Greetings, > > There was a tr{e/}s cool heraldic happening at Lions Gate's > Bardic Revel on Saturday night. > > His Majest asked (in court) "How do you thank someone who > already has most of the awards? [description of years of > service and high praise deleted] ...we are awarding an > Augmentation of Arms to Gerhard Kendal." Way cool! > > Gerhard was given his choice of what was to appear on the > augmentation and chose the badge of his lady, Amanda: Purpure, > a fret or. > > Oh Knowledgeable Heralds: Could you enlighten us on the hows, > w[h]erefores, and procedures of an augmentation of arms? They are > an actual period "award", are they not? How is an augmentation > of arms generally displayed? Augmentations of arms in period were not exactly an 'award' per se (well, certainly not an 'Order', like the Order of the Golden Fleece or the Order of the Garter, where you joined a group.) They were additions to, or (in some cases) changes to arms that were granted by the Crown as an honor. One example that is fairly easily available to most folks are the arms of the Medici, which had six roundels in annulo. The Crown of France augmented the Medici arms by changing the top roundel from its original color to blue with gold fleurs de lys (a mini arms of France.) Admiral Nelson's post-period multiply-augmented arms can be found in books like Fox-Davies and show what happens when Augmentations Go Too Far. An example of an augmentation that involved a complete change of arms in the mundane world (I'd have to look up the date, think it's 17th c.) was a case where a Colonel hid the King in a tree thus allowing them both to escape from defeat. The King changed his arms to one including a tree as a primary charge. Most of the time though period augmentations were additions of some charge that was important to the Crown. You can see Tudor arms which are augmented with Tudor Roses for example. Often these charges were just plunked on the field or on a convenient Ordinary. A charged canton was a favorite vehicle for augmentations in period, and is also one in the SCA. It has a number of design advantages that make it work well. For one thing, it is a nice clear addition. For another, you can choose the color of the canton to make it have good contrast. For a third thing, even if it does overlie a charge, if the field is covered with identical charges as is often the case in period heraldry, you can figure out what the underlying arms are pretty well. Azure three mullets argent, for augmentation on a canton Or a lion rampant gules (as a hypothetical example) does cover one mullet, but you still know what the arms are. (This is also why charged cantons aren't available to the average folk in the SCA as a design; they look too much like augmentations on the average.) > In a later conversation, Gerhard mentioned that the canton must overlay > some part/charges of the existing arms, why is this? I am not aware of such a restriction. His arms are Or, a lizard tergiant displayed vert between in fess two Kendal flowers proper and he should be able to cram in a canton (which can be as small as 1/9 of the field) without disturbing the other charges. as a practical matter though much heraldry does end up with some charges overlapped by a canton. > Must they be submitted > and approved by the CoH as a change to the arms? To be official, yes. The CoH will then protect both the unaugmented version, as well as the augmented version (see footnote 3). The A and O blazon will reflect this: e.g. Azure three mullets argent, for augmentation on a canton Or a lion rampant gules. Not just "Azure three mullets argent on a canton Or a lion rampant gules. Note that because of this requirement to be registerable by the College of Arms this means that the Crown cannot specify the exact form of an augmentation (see footnote 1). The Crown can suggest something. I am sure there is some way that Gerhard can work in 'purpure a fret Or' into his arms... but if there is some reason the charged canton will not work, the Crown cannot override Laurel and force it to be registered. Reasons that it might not work: style (which isn't a problem here) and/or conflict (either with the augmentation by itself (see footnote 7) or with the whole augmented coat (a conflict might not exist with the base coat, but might exist with the augmented coat.) > There was some talk > of a "checky or and argent" bordure as > well, what's that about? (As I understand it, this part is > still under discussion.) The checky Or and Argent bordure has two problems: The Big Whomping Problem: no one can have (under ordinary circumstances) checky of two metals (see footnote 4). An Tir can do it because of the Grandfather Clause (they already have that design registered) but other people can't... as a general rule, the augmentation belongs to the person registering the augmentation and not the Crown. Augmentations should not break heraldic rules, except in some specific circumstances having to do with complexity (see footnote 2 and 6). The secondary problem: In this specific instance,such a bordure would have no contrast on Gerhard's metal field, once again causing a contrast problem. Now there may conceivably be a long term workaround to the Big Problem of seeing if the Crown can get people using checky argent and Or as an augmentation. The Kingdom of Meridies has a fieldless badge that they use to augment individual's arms (see footnote 5). Perhaps the Kingdom of An Tir could register some item to use similarly... however, it isn't clear to me if Laurel would allow this Kingdom item to then be used by individuals who aren't An Tir or not, because of the style issue. This hasn't come up before... I know that the (unconjoined charges) fieldless meridies badge mentioned in the footnote isn't legal now but I'm not sure if it was legal then. In any case though, some solution would have to be come up with for the situation of people with metal fields: a bordure checky argent and Or wouldn't cut it for people with metal fields, unless someone comes up with evidence for a good pattern of use of augmentations breaking tincture rules in period. Zenobia alias Couronne Rouge alias Clarion Footnotes: (1) As has been noted by prior Laurel precedent, no Crown may specify the form an augmentation (or arms, for that matter) may take. Relevant prior rulings on this are found in the Cover Letter of 28 January 1983, p. 4; the Cover Letter of 7 December 1986, pp. 3-4; and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of 24 January 1988, p. 12. (LoAR 4/92). (2) Laurel has said before (LoAR December 1990, p. 8) that augmentations by their very nature add complexity to a device, and augmented arms should not be held to comply to the same standards as unaugmented devices. (LoAR 4/92). (3) Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against both versions. (Rondallyn of Golgotha, September, 1992, pg. 26) (4) (From the Rules for Submission, edited for clarity. Full version available on request.) VIII.2. Armorial Contrast - All armory must have sufficient contrast to allow each element of the design to be clearly identifiable at a distance. [snip...]The colors are azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert (blue, red, purple, black, and green).The metals are argent and Or (white or silver, and yellow or gold). [snip] a. Contrasting Tinctures - Good contrast exists between: i. A metal and a color; ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained; iii. A color and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is predominantly light; iv. A metal and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is predominantly dark. [so, metal and metal is not good contrast. Neither is color and color.] b.Contrast Requirements - [snip] iv. Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts. For example, checky argent and gules is acceptable, but checky azure and gules is not. (5) [Precedent] [(Fieldless) Three mullets one and two argent] This is an augmentation of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it deems worthy. It's purpose is not the same as a fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be displayed on a field by the recipients. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR March 1996, p. 4) (6) [Precedent] The basic question raised by this submission is can an augmentation break the rule of tincture? While there is period evidence of the arms of the Empire (Or, an eagle displayed sable) being used as an augmentation (and the proposed augmentation here is the arms of the Middle Kingdom, minus the laurel wreath), only one example of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register this practice. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR August 1997, p. 26 (7) [Precedent] The first is that the augmentation conflicts with both the seal of the Dragon Principal Herald (it is a tinctured version of same, and therefore can be considered an exact conflict) and with the populace badge of the Middle Kingdom (Argent, a pale gules, overall a dragon passant vert) with only one CD for the posture of the overall charge. For the first conflict, there is an additional issue which will be discussed in the following paragraphs. For the second conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It has always been the policy of the College not to assume that permission is given even if explicitly stated in an LoI (which was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written letter of permission to conflict. (Apropos of this is the motto on the seal of the office of the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, Semper Litteris Mandate, "always require/get it in writing".) The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the Dragon Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons. One is that we have not previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or not a letter of permission to conflict existed. (See, e.g., the discussion of the proposed augmentation for Jan w Orzeldom, LoAR April 1992, p. 17: "There is also some question whether an individual or a group can grant the right to their undifferenced arms for use by someone else. The use of letters of permission to conflict (which is what Laurel considers the petition by the members of the Barony of Bjornsborg to be) in the College has always been to allow a reduced standard of difference, not to allow the use of arms undifferenced. It is Laurel's belief that the only way the use of arms registered to one party may be granted undifferenced to another is to transfer those arms, with the appropriate letters signed by both parties transferring the arms and accepting them.") The second reason it is troublesome is that it was a period practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to apply to former holders of the office, but only to incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a claim to be the current Dragon Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI). For three reasons, then, we are required to return this augmentation of arms: for lack of a letter of permission to conflict with the badge of the Middle Kingdom, Argent, a pale gules, overall a dragon passant vert; because it is an exact conflict with the seal of the Dragon Principal Herald, for which exact conflict permission cannot be granted; and because it marshals the arms of an office with personal arms when the submitter is not the officeholder, in violation of RfS XI. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR September 1995, pp. 28-29)