Cross (Heraldic Charge): Difference between revisions

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 172: Line 172:
[[http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/03/13-03cl.html]]
[[http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/03/13-03cl.html]]


==='''November 2012 - Cross of Caid revisited:'''===  
==='''November 2012 - Cross of Caid revisited:'''===
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> From Wreath: On the Cross of Caid, Yet Again </span>
From Wreath: On the Cross of Caid, Yet Again </span>
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">A submission this month from the Kingdom of Caid requested that the portion of their augmentation of arms, _four crescents conjoined in saltire horns outward_, be blazoned as a _cross of Caid_.</span>
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">A submission this month from the Kingdom of Caid requested that the portion of their augmentation of arms, _four crescents conjoined in saltire horns outward_, be blazoned as a _cross of Caid_.</span>


Line 186: Line 186:


<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">The College of Heralds of Caid appealed to the College of Arms for new evidence </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">of named crosses in period blazonry, given the number of period armorials and rolls that have become available in the past several years. Unfortunately, no such new evidence was found. Therefore, we reaffirm the past decisions, and will continue to bar the use of the terms _cross of Caid_ or _Caidan cross_ in blazon.</span>
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">The College of Heralds of Caid appealed to the College of Arms for new evidence </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">of named crosses in period blazonry, given the number of period armorials and rolls that have become available in the past several years. Unfortunately, no such new evidence was found. Therefore, we reaffirm the past decisions, and will continue to bar the use of the terms _cross of Caid_ or _Caidan cross_ in blazon.</span>
[''But see November 2020 Decision above'']
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html


==='''March 2012 LoAR - cross fourchetty:'''===  
==='''March 2012 LoAR - cross fourchetty:'''===  

Revision as of 08:38, 24 January 2021

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources to verify the information and use them for your documentation.

Illustrations:

Period:

Field division, fourchetty, cross formy double-pommeled (?)

File:BSB308WernigeroderCrusillyCounterCrusilly.jpg File:BSB390 f500 CrossFourchetty.jpg File:Arlberg p361 1548 cross.jpg
BSB308, Wernigeroder Wappenbuch, 1475-1500, ? Crusilly-counter-crusilly line of division? BSB 390 Wappenbuch des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, f500, 1554-68, Cross Fourchetty, used in defining instance Wappenbuch der Arlberg-Brudershaft, 1548, f361, cross formy double-pommeled at the foot?

Tincture issues:

Insignia Dictionary of British Arms; Medieval Ordinary, Volume three, page 202, under "Patterned field 1 plain cross plain border" is Arg fretty Gu cross Arg border Sa, for one Sir Hew Bryce, from WK (which is Writhe's Book of Knights, temp. Henry VII) Insignia
Insignia Anglica BSB 291, f28v, zero contrast cross Insignia Venetorum, BSB 272 f175, 1550-55, azure on gules, mullet, cross

Formy floretty, a fancy moline:

Powell's Powell's
Powell's Roll, MS Ashmole 804 Pt IV, 1345-52, crosses formy floretty Powell's Roll, MS Ashmole 804 Pt IV, 1345-52, cross moline prettied up

Purpure:

BSB270 088r crosspurpure.JPG
BSB270, Insignia Nobilium Mediolanensium, 1550-55, cross purpure

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

A cross tripartite and fretted from Mistholme.

Crosses found in period:

Cross of annulets braced, cross annulety, cross avellane, cross bottony, cross of Calatrava, cross of Calvary, cross clechy, cross couped, cross crescenty, cross crosslet, cross doubly pommeled, cross of ermine spots, cross fitchy, cross flory, cross formy, cross fouchetty, cross fourchy, cross of fusils, cross glandular, cross gringoly, cross of Jerusalem, key cross, Latin cross, Maltese cross, cross moline, cross parted and fretted, cross patonce, cross patriarchal, cross pomelly, cross portate], cross potent, cross quarter-pierced, cross rayonnant, cross of Santiago, cross swallowtailed, tau cross, cross of Toulouse, cross tripartite and fretted.

Crosses that are accepted in the Society (as of June 2014):

ankh, cross arrondi, Bowen cross, cross of Canterbury, Celtic cross, cross of Coldharbour, Coptic cross, cross estoile, cross humetty, cross of lozenges, cross of mascles, Norse sun cross, cross of pheons, cross pointed, cross quadrate, Russian Orthodox cross, cross of Samildanach, crux stellata.

Crosses which carry a step from period practice (as of June 2014):

cross gurgity, cross nowy, cross of Saint Brigid.

Crosses which have been disallowed:

cross alisee, cross barby, cross of Cerdana, fillet cross, cross of flames, fylfot, Non cross, Papal cross, star cross, Ukrainian sun cross.

Vector Graphics:

Pennsic Traceable Art Project:

Glossary of Terms:

Crosses crosslet:

The plural of cross crosslet is crosses crosslet. http://heraldry.sca.org/coagloss.html

Other Sources:

Coblaith's Cross Articles:

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents)

Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

November 2020 Cover Letter - Named motif: "cross of Caid"

From Wreath: Effective immediately, a cross of Caid as proposed by the Kingdom of Caid is defined as the tinctureless arrangement of charges, four crescents conjoined in saltire horns outward. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/11/20-11cl.html#6

July 2018 Cover Letter - From Wreath: Celtic Crosses

A Celtic cross, image from Cover Letter
A cross potent throughout interlaced with an annulet, image from Cover Letter

Celtic crosses are allowed in SCA armory because they are artifacts found in Great Britain and Ireland. However, they have been poorly defined in the past, which has led to a number of different depictions of both equal-armed and Latin Celtic crosses. This loose definition has left submitters vulnerable to depicting non-documentable versions of the Celtic cross, including the "gunsight" version discussed earlier in this Cover Letter. In order to bring our understanding of Celtic crosses into line with period practice and SENA, the charge needs a tighter definition.

Extant examples of stone Celtic crosses have three things in common: wide arms which are straight or slightly tapered, with couped ends; semi-circular cutouts at each of the four angles at which the arms meet in the center; and an annulet that is thinner than the arms, centered on the central axes of the cross, with all four arms of the cross extending beyond the annulet. Artifacts following this pattern are found in both Latinate and equal-armed varieties. This form of Celtic cross will continue to be registerable. Crosses that do not have these three features are not Celtic crosses, and must be documented and defined separately.

The closest version of a Celtic cross yet found in period heraldry are the arms of Moresini, c. 1550: Or, a bend azure, overall a cross throughout interlaced with an annulet argent in Insignia Venetorum nobilium III (IP-Z) (BSB Cod.icon 273, 48r). A similar set of arms borne by Cardinal St. Marie found in the Chronicle of the Council of Constance, 1413, is cited by Bruce Batonvert in the Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry; it differs from Moresini only in that the cross throughout has potent terminals at the edges of the shield. It is from these designs that we get the Cross of Coldharbour (now a banned motif for offense; see earlier in this Cover Letter) and the potent-ended Celtic cross as described in the Pictorial Dictionary. However, the documentable period motif is not a single charge, but two: a cross throughout potent (functioning as an ordinary) interlaced with an annulet. Said motif is registerable, but moving forward it will be blazoned and treated as two separate charges (ordinary and annulet) in the same primary or overall charge group.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/07/18-07cl.html#2

March 2013 - Celtic crosses:

From Wreath: Celtic Crosses Lately we have received several submissions with charges blazoned as _a Celtic cross_ which are clearly not. Instead, these charges are typically a cross couped combined with an annulet in some fashion. Precedent says:

The so-called "Celtic" cross is not. A Celtic cross is a specific type of cross, which has tapering arms. Adding an annulet to any particular type of cross does not automatically make it a Celtic cross. This "crosshair" depiction of a cross is not acceptable. [Sadb ingen Chonchobair, R-Atlantia, Jan 2010 LoAR]

Any Google image search on "Celtic cross" will turn up a number of correct crosses (at least for outline, ignoring the knotwork). Celtic crosses default to Latin, have the annulet clearly conjoined with the limbs of the cross, and have arms that taper towards the center. Whether or not the ends of the arms are potent is considered artistic license. Celtic crosses are not period heraldic charges, but are period artifacts.

There is at least one known period depiction of a plain cross with an annulet, specifically a plain cross throughout with an annulet fretted or interlaced in the Italian arms of Moresini in BSB Cod.icon. 273 on f.48r (@http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001420/image_99). [[1]]

November 2012 - Cross of Caid revisited:

From Wreath: On the Cross of Caid, Yet Again A submission this month from the Kingdom of Caid requested that the portion of their augmentation of arms, _four crescents conjoined in saltire horns outward_, be blazoned as a _cross of Caid_.

I can do no better than to quote the May 2007 Cover Letter on this very topic, which reads: Over the years, Laurel has declined to use the term _cross of Caid_ or _Caidan cross_, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly (by changing the blazon that appeared on the LoI without comment). The first return was when Jaelle Laurel in July 1986 [sic, should be 1996] wrote

To quote Baldwin in his April 1986 LoAR: "Spring is in the air, and the fit is upon me - let me name but one Cross before I die!" While it is indeed quite tempting to call the four crescents conjoined in saltire a "Cross of Caid", we feel that named SCA motifs make reconstruction of blazons more difficult for heralds and scribes.

The letter continues on to discuss the issue, and emphasizes the decision to follow period practice in blazon whenever possible:

The usage of the terms _cross of Caid_ and _Caidan cross_ is perfectly acceptable, outside of blazons. These terms will not be used in blazons unless we find support in period blazonry for named crosses (and not just a single instance). If such evidence is presented, this issue may be revisited.

The College of Heralds of Caid appealed to the College of Arms for new evidence of named crosses in period blazonry, given the number of period armorials and rolls that have become available in the past several years. Unfortunately, no such new evidence was found. Therefore, we reaffirm the past decisions, and will continue to bar the use of the terms _cross of Caid_ or _Caidan cross_ in blazon.

[But see November 2020 Decision above]

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html

March 2012 LoAR - cross fourchetty:

"Crispin MacCoy. Name and device. Argent, a cross fourchetty and on a chief sable an eye argent irised azure. This is the defining instance of a cross fourchetty in Society armory. This charge, blazoned by Rietstap as a cross fourchetée, can be seen in BSB.Cod.icon 390, Stephan Brechtel's Wappenbuch of the Holy Roman Empire, 1554-1568, on f.500 at @http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020447/image_582. The cross fourchetty is a member of the moline cross family, as per the May 2009 Cover Letter, and so is substantially different from crosses not in the same family. The cross fourchetty is significantly different from a cross moline." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/03/12-03lar.html

Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP): see also below Coblaith articles

July 2018 From Wreath: Symbols of Hate

The resurgence of white supremacist organizations and other hate groups has been in the news recently, and the SCA has not been immune to its effects. The use of Norse and Saxon symbols by such groups directly affects both submitters and the College of Arms...

...SENA A7B4 specifically states that "Some designs are offensive because of individual charges...Others are offensive only in the overall design." There have been several returns for offense over the decades, most recently in the January 2015 LoAR return of Nikolaus Grünenwaldt's device, Gules, in saltire two cubit arms and on a chief argent three crosses formy sable. In that return, Wreath noted:

In this case, both crosses formy and the red, white, and black color scheme were extensively used in German iconography, including during the Nazi era. These motifs are used today by white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups in the United States. Additionally, the motif of two white objects (hammers or grenades) crossed in saltire is used in Neo-Nazi iconography, as is a raised white fist, often depicted with a substantial piece of arm, as found in a cubit arm). While any of these motifs is registerable, the combination of them here rises to the point of an offensive potential reference to white supremacist movements.

We continue to support this ruling...

This brings us to the subject of Celtic crosses and Norse sun crosses. Both symbols have deep spiritual and cultural positive meanings for people around the world, and both are popular motifs in SCA heraldry. However, both have also been used by white supremacist groups for some time now.

The version of the "Celtic" cross used commonly by white supremacists in the U.S. and Europe is a cross couped conjoined to and surmounted by an annulet. As drawn, it resembles a gunsight. This design is among the more popular designs used by white supremacist groups, similar in ubiquity to the swastika. It was previously ruled unregisterable in the SCA in the January 2010 return of Sadb ingen Chonchobair's device, Argent, on a catamount rampant vert a straight-armed Latinate Celtic cross argent on the ground that the Celtic cross as so drawn is undocumentable; we now rule that this rendering of the Celtic cross, both couped and throughout (the latter also being known as a Cross of Coldharbour) is also offensive and unregisterable in any format regardless of documentation. A more comprehensive discussion about appropriate Celtic crosses may be found in the next section of this Cover Letter.

Norse sun crosses are not offensive in their own right. They are used in several cultures throughout the world. However, the Norse sun cross is also a popular motif among white supremacists, sometimes used as a stand-in for a swastika, and so must be considered with care... https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/07/18-07cl.html#1

October 2013 - cross estoile:

From Wreath: No More Elongated Mullets... We had two submissions this month that featured a mullet elongated palewise. We have no evidence that such artistic treatment of a mullet was ever done in period armory at all, and we grant no difference between a mullet and a mullet elongated palewise. However, we do have period evidence of mullets elongated to base (i.e., only the basemost ray is stretched out), but those appear to be a variant of a comet, not normal mullet. An example of such a comet can be seen in the 16th century Italian armorial Insignia Nobilium Patavinorum, BSB Cod.icon. 275, on f.65r (found at http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001422/image_137). Therefore, as we would like to avoid confusion between comets and mullets, mullets elongated palewise will no longer be registerable after the April 2014 decision meetings... [Note, a mullet of four points elongated to base is also known as a cross-estoile] http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2013/10/13-10cl.html

May 2011 - cross barby:

Jon Lutherson. Name and device. Argent, a cross barby purpure. "This device is returned for conflict... On resubmission, the submitter should be aware that the cross barby is the outlawed symbol of the white supremacist movement in Hungary, similar to the use of the swastika/fylfot in Germany, and there was some discussion of banning the cross barby as an offensive charge. We are not ruling on that issue at this time. However, research provided no examples of crosses barby in period heraldry. Any submitter wishing to register this charge after the December 2011 Laurel meeting must provide documentation that it is, in fact, a period charge." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2011/05/11-05lar.html

October 2007 - sun cross revisted:

#116Mary Taran of Glastonbury and Æduin of Skye. Joint badge. Per fess wavy argent and barry wavy azure and argent, in chief a Norse sun-cross sable. There was some call to return this badge for using only a single abstract charge. As stated in precedent: > The Norse sun cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols cannot be registered as the sole charge. This ruling was applied to Norse sun crosses in April 1994 (pg. 15, s.n. Barony of Bonwicke). [Briget MacLeod, 09/2000, R-West] However, in the registration of Æduin's device in March 2001, Laurel ruled: > Norse sun crosses are allowed, if not encouraged, because by their alternate blazon, a cross within and conjoined to an annulet, they fit a pattern of combined charges that we have registered for many years, and are at most one step from period practice. It has long been our standard that you while you cannot blazon your way out of conflict, you can blazon your way out of style problems. If blazoned as a cross within and conjoined to an annulet// instead of a //Norse sun cross, this would obviously not be a single abstract charge. Therefore it is registerable even as the only charge (or charge combination) on the armory. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/10/07-10lar.html

Conflict:

see also Coblaith's articles below

May 2011 - cross barby vs fleury:

Jon Lutherson. Name and device. Argent, a cross barby purpure. "This device is returned for conflict with the device of Rayne Louvecienne, Argent, on a cross fleury purpure, a rose argent. There is insufficient difference between a cross barby and Rayne's depiction of a cross fleury. There is a single CD for the removal of the rose. On resubmission, the submitter should be aware that the cross barby is the outlawed symbol of the white supremacist movement in Hungary, similar to the use of the swastika/fylfot in Germany, and there was some discussion of banning the cross barby as an offensive charge. We are not ruling on that issue at this time. However, research provided no examples of crosses barby in period heraldry. Any submitter wishing to register this charge after the December 2011 Laurel meeting must provide documentation that it is, in fact, a period charge." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2011/05/11-05lar.html

May 2009 - crosses and substantial difference:

From Wreath: Crosses and Substantial Difference Given the widespread support for the proposal, we are implementing Batonvert's proposal on crosses that appeared on the Cover Letter for the August 2008 LoAR. Substantial difference under X.2 will henceforth be granted between crosses appearing below that do not belong to the same family. The families are:

  • Plain crosses couped, including Latinate and humetty.
  • Crosses flory, floretty, patonce, clechy, Calatrava, and Santiago.
  • Crosses crosslet and bottony.
  • Crosses moline, sarcelly, recercelly, anchory, fourchy, and miller.
  • Crosses formy/paty. (see the note, below)
  • Crosses doubled, patriarchal, and Lorraine.
  • The cross potent/billety.
  • The Tau cross.
  • The cross of Calvary.
  • The cross of Toulouse.
  • The cross gringoly.
  • The cross pomelly/bourdonny.
  • The Maltese cross.

We note that, in period, the term paty could refer to crosses in the flory family. The formy/paty family is not intended to overlap these two groups, we are using the SCA blazon term. Standard period variants of a particular style of cross will not be considered separate; no difference is granted for fitching, changing between equal-armed and Latinate, etc. Substantial difference between crosses is not limited to the above list. It is, instead, intended to provide a set of guidelines on the most frequently seen crosses in heraldry. All rulings of substantial difference which are not addressed by the above list remain in force, as do all rulings on significant difference. [[2]]

August 2008 - Call For Discussion of Crosses and Substantial Difference

The cross is one of the most prolific charges found in medieval heraldry. There were at least a dozen types of "discrete" cross (i.e., a cross used as a charge like a lion or hammer, and not as an ordinary like a fess or bend) found in heraldry by the end of the 14th Century; modern heraldry texts can cite well over a hundred, though it's doubtful how many of the latter were actually used in armory. The Society's question has always been how to count difference between these cross variants. For this discussion, we are considering only discrete crosses such as the cross flory,// and not the cross as an ordinary, either plain or complex (e.g., //cross engrailed.) Generally, Sovereigns of Arms have been reluctant to grant substantial difference between discrete cross variants: the number of rulings that have granted substantial difference have been far fewer than the rulings that have explicitly disallowed it. We have a guideline of sorts: > In most cases where substantial difference is given, it is because the charges in question are standard period charges which are definitely not standard period variants of one another and are always visually distinct. [Dec 01] In practice, the "visually distinct" clause has been used to limit to a CD the difference between two period crosses that were considered as different as lions and horses. In commentary, Batonvert noted an article by Gerard Brault, in Coat of Arms magazine ("The Cross in Medieval Heraldry", Coat of Arms I(90):54-64, Summer 1974), in which the forms of discrete crosses are listed. In modern blazon, these would be the cross flory// (and its artistic variants, the crosses floretty, patonce, and clechy), the //cross crosslet// (and its variant, the cross botonny), the //cross moline// (and its variants, the crosses sarcelly, recercelly, anchory and miller), the //cross formy// (also called the cross paty), the //cross patriarchal// (and its variant, the cross of Lorraine), the //cross potent// (also called the cross billety), the //cross couped,// the //tau cross// (also called the cross of S. Anthony), the //cross Calvary,// the //cross of Toulouse,// the //cross gringoly,// and the //cross pomelly// (also called the cross bourdonny). A later form of cross not discussed in Brault's article is the //Maltese cross. All of these crosses are "standard period charges" which were "not standard period variants of one another" -- and, we suspect, would have been considered "visually distinct" by period heralds. We propose that substantial (X.2) difference be granted between any two crosses on the above list. Other crosses might also get substantial difference, depending on circumstance: we note, for instance, that substantial difference was granted between the cross moline// and the //cross of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm based on the number of limbs on each cross (May 01). Commenters are asked to discuss two questions. First, the question of granting substantial difference between all of the above cross types. Secondly, the question of what standards should be set, if any, for determining substantial difference between crosses, including non-period cross types, in the future. [[3]]


Collected Precedents:

Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - [[4]] The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - [[5]] The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [HTML Document] The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) - the 1st part (Nov 1993 - June 1994) and the 2nd part (July 1994 - June 1996) The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [precedents] The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) - the 1st year (June 1990 - June 1991) and the 2nd year (July 1991 - June 1992) The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [HTML Document] The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [Precedents] The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [Precedents]

Ordinary

(includes crusily, crux ansata, mound, orb, potent, rogacina)

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Cross_(Heraldic_Charge)&oldid=6466"