Augmentation of Arms

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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

See also Branch Arms Display with "Chiefs of Allegiance" and other possibilities for displaying Augmentations.

Illustrations:

Period Sources:

Rektoratsmatrikel der Universität Basel, Vol 1 AN II 3 Basel/Schweiz nach 1460 Folio 232 Matriculation Register of the Rectorate of the University of Basel. Image c1509-10? A pale of the Holy Roman Empire as a possible Augmentation (vs mark of allegiance).	Insignia Urbium, BSB 270 f178, 1550-55, double tower

See also Branch Arms Display

Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - http://www.s-gabriel.org/heraldry/

Archive of St. Gabriel reports - http://www.panix.com/~gabriel/public-bin/archive.cgi

Laurel Armory Articles - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/armory_articles.html

Period Armorials

Julian Franklyn, in Shield and Crest, has a section on augmentations of honor. It starts on page 267 of the Sterling Publishing Co. Inc. edition

_Honour and Arms: The Story of Some Augmentations of Honour_ by J. F. Huxford, Buckland Publications Limited, 125 High Holborn, London, WCIV 6QA, 1984, ISBN 0721206840.

---

Glossary of Terms:

(Also, Augmentation) An honor added to a registered device. First, the Crown of a kingdom must give the recipient of the augmentation the right to add a charge or charges to a registered device as an honor, then the honor must be registered with the College of Arms. An augmentation is not registered as a change of armory; instead, both the underlying arms and the arms with augmentation are protected. Therefore, the underlying armory can be changed while keeping the augmentation the same (assuming no style problems result). Augmentations are usually registered by the College of Arms in the form "[Blazon of device], and as an augmentation, [blazon of augmentation]".

http://heraldry.sca.org/coagloss.html

Administrative Handbook:

Submissions Regulations - II. Registerable Items - D. Armory Which May be Registered to Individuals: 3. Augmentation - An addition to a device given as an honor; both the augmented armory and the unaugmented armory are protected. While the right to an augmentation is given by a kingdom, the form of the augmentation and its suitability for use and registration with a specific device must be approved by the College of Arms. Individuals must demonstrate appropriate proof of entitlement to the augmentation as well as the right to use any restricted charges in the augmentation. The augmented and the unaugmented arms together count as only a single item for purposes of the registration limit; the augmentation is not registered independent of the arms to which it is added. Only the Personal Device can be augmented; badges may not be. http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/admin.html#II.A

Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory (SENA):

http://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A3A3

A.Armory Armorial submissions fit into four categories: primary armory, fielded badges, fieldless badges, and augmentations of honor... Augmentations of honor are additions to existing pieces of primary armory to reflect an honor bestowed by the Crown of an individual kingdom. See A.3 for discussion of the rules which apply specifically to augmentations of arms...

A.3. A.3. Types of Designs: Augmentations of Honor:

[revised per August 2022 Cover Letter https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2022/08/22-08cl.html#6 The updates are shown below in a standard insert/delete fashion with additions underlined and deletions struck through.]

An augmentation is a mark of honor bestowed by the Crown that is added to an existing device. An augmentation may not be added to a badge. An augmentation may take many forms, including but not limited to a charged canton, a charged chief, charges in canton or chief, a charge associated with the Crown, or a charge associated with the individual receiving the honor.

a. While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the Crown, its specific form must be determined through the normal registration process. Both the augmentation itself and the augmented device must follow the style rules and restrictions on charges. Because an augmentation adds complexity, augmented devices are often allowed to violate certain style rules, such as allowing charges on tertiary charges or a complexity count of greater than eight, as long as the identifiability of the design is maintained. Charged cantons, charged inescutcheons, and charged chiefs (when they are an augmentation) may have poor contrast with whatever they happen to overlay, whether the field or another charge, provided identifiability is maintained. Other augmentations may not violate the rules on contrast.

For example, the arms of a branch may not be granted as an augmentation, because they contain a laurel wreath, which cannot be registered to an individual. For example, Gules, a sea-dog rampant and a chief Or, for augmentation on a canton vert a mullet argent may be registered despite the poor contrast of the vert canton which lies partially on the gules field.

b. An augmentation that appears to be a display of independent armory, such as that described in SENA A6C must also be evaluated as if the augmentation itself were a submission of independent armory for purposes of style, conflict, offense, and presumption.

For example, the chief in Gules, a lion rampant and on a chief argent a rose between two mullets gules does not need to be conflict checked as it is not an augmentation and thus not considered a display of independent armory. The same chief in an augmentation, Gules, a lion rampant argent, for augmentation on a chief argent a rose between two mullets gules, does not need to be conflict checked as it has neither a peripheral ordinary nor an ordinary terminating at the edge and therefore is not considered to be a display of independent armory. However, the chief in Gules, a lion rampant argent, for augmentation on a chief argent a cross between four roses gules does need to be conflict checked as independent armory as it is an augmentation that has an ordinary (the cross) that terminates at the edge.

c. An augmentation may be created through quartering the augmentation (in the first and fourth quarters) with the base device (in the second and third quarters). The first and fourth quarters are considered to be a display of independent armory and must be evaluated as such. The quarters in quartered armory that is not part of an augmentation but is registerable under A6F are not considered independent displays of armory.

For example, in Quarterly sable and argent, two squirrels sable the quarters do not need to be conflict checked as it is not an augmentation. However, in Argent, a squirrel sable, and for augmentation quartered second and third with first and fourth sable, an acorn Or the quarter Sable, an acorn Or must be conflict checked as independent armory.

d. Kingdoms may designate a badge (or badges) as a standard augmentation for its subjects who receive augmentations. Such a badge is considered to be subject to the existing registration allowance and does not need to be further checked for style, conflict, offense, or presumption.

https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A5C4

As revised, section A5C4 reads:

4. Augmentations: As discussed in A3A3, in a submission of augmented arms where the augmentation appears to be a display of independent armory, such as that described in SENA A6C, the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a submission of independent armory.

https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A6C As revised, section A6C reads:

C. Claims through Arms of Pretense and Unearned Augmentations: In period and modern heraldry, an individual may assert a claim to land or property by placing the armory associated with that property on an escutcheon in the middle of their existing armory. An augmentation of honor often takes the form of a charged canton; occasionally it takes the form of a charged escutcheon. Therefore, either a canton or a single escutcheon may be used in an armorial submission only if it is uncharged and of a single tincture. Multiple escutcheons do not have to follow this limitation. The use of a charged lozenge as arms of pretense or an augmentation is vanishingly rare. We will not consider a single uncharged lozenge, a single lozenge with a single, non-ordinary, tertiary charge, or multiple lozenges to be  a display of independent armory nor its use to be presumptuous.

For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent is not allowed, because it appears to be arms of pretense. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent is registerable, because multiple identical escutcheons were not used for arms of pretense or augmentations. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by a lozenge sable charged with a roundel argent is registerable as we do not consider a lozenge with a single tertiary charge to be  a display of independent armory. However, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an lozenge sable charged with two roundels argent is not allowed because it has more than one tertiary charge and thus is considered  a display of independent armory and presumptuous. Argent, on a lozenge sable a cross Or and Argent, on a lozenge sable a fess Or are not allowed as the lozenges are charged with ordinaries and are therefore considered independent displays of armory and presumptuous.

In period and modern heraldry, quartered arms are often a claim to a marital or inheritance relationship or about an office that the person holds. An augmentation of honor may also appear to be marshalled arms with the augmentation appearing in the first and fourth quarters and the original arms appearing in the second and third quarters. While, as discussed in section A6F, we do not usually allow the registration of armory appearing to be marshalled arms, an exception is made for an augmentation so long as all of the charges of the base (unaugmented) device remain identifiable.

Chiefs are a valid period form of augmentation; however, chiefs (whether charged or uncharged) are much more commonly not augmentations. As such, unless it is part of an augmentation and contains either a peripheral ordinary or an ordinary terminating at the edge, we do not consider a chief to be a display of independent armory nor its use to be presumptuous.

The rules governing earned Augmentations are discussed in A3A3.

As revised, section A6F reads:

F. Claims through Marshalling: Marshalling is the combination of two or more arms into a single design. By doing so, it makes a claim about the person that we do not allow in registered arms. This claim can be to a marital or inheritance relationship, about an office that the person holds, or an unearned augmentation. In some cases, such designs may be displayed, even though they cannot be registered.

Arms combined using the per pale field division generally combined either marital arms or the arms of an individual and an office. They are often called impaled arms and were not inherited. The display of registered arms impaled to show a marital relationship is encouraged, even though it is not registerable.

Arms combined using the quarterly field division generally combined inherited arms from armigerous parents. They are often called marshalled arms or quartered arms. Once inherited, they were sometimes further cadenced as a whole. While the Spanish occasionally used per saltire divisions for marshalled designs, they more commonly used quarterly divisions for this, so we do not consider fields divided per saltire as potentially marshalled designs.

Marshalling in these rules refers to both impaling and quartering collectively. Arms that appear to be marshalled cannot be registered unless they are augmentations as discussed in A3A3 and A6C.

Both quarterly and per pale divisions were used in single armorial designs and also in marshalled designs. Therefore, quarterly and per pale divisions of the field may be registered only when there is no unmistakable appearance of marshalling. Most designs are either clearly not marshalled or clearly marshalled, but some require more careful examination:

There are no changes to A6F1 through A6F3.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2022/08/22-08cl.html#6

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.

Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

October 2021 Cover Letter - Chiefs of Allegiance as Augmentations

There has been an increase lately in the number of submissions using the equivalent of chiefs of allegiance for augmentations of arms. This has led to questions about the authenticity of such a practice since chiefs of allegiance are typically considered a form of display rather than an indication of any honor.

Research into the augmentations (German "wappenbesserung") found in the Austrian State Archives at https://www.archivinformationssystem.at/feldsuche.aspx shows that a "chief of the Empire" (an Or chief with a sable eagle) was a very common augmentation, particularly among augmenatations granted to Italians. There are many examples of this pattern, which are demonstrated in the following:

The arms of Landus (Lando), which can be seen unaugmented in Insignia Venetorum nobilium III (https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00001420?page=13) as Quarterly argent and sable, were augmented in 1559 (https://www.archivinformationssystem.at/detail.aspx?ID=2532505) by adding a chief Or charged with a double-headed eagle sable.

The arms of Capelli, which can be seen unaugmented in Doges and families of Venice (https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/10613747) f. 26v as Per fess argent and azure, a cap counterchanged were similarly augmented in 1558 (https://www.archivinformationssystem.at/detail.aspx?ID=1533058) by adding a chief Or charged with a double-headed eagle sable.

The arms of Benevenuto, Azure, in fess a tree proper sustained by two lions combattant Or all atop a base grady argent, were augmented in 1574 by adding a chief Or charged with an eagle sable (both the unaugmented and augmented arms can be seen at https://www.archivinformationssystem.at/detail.aspx?ID=1917172).

We are satisfied that chiefs resembling chiefs of allegiance are a valid period form of augmentation. We shall treat them to the same standard as augmenting cantons and instruct Palimpsest to amend SENA appropriately.

We thank Iago Boar for providing this discussion of the matter and we encourage further research into the different ways arms were augmented in period.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2021/10/21-10cl.html#4

Identifiability:

December 2020 CL - On the Contrast Requirements of Augmentations of Arms

We recently asked for discussion about contrast requirements for augmentations.

The item in question presented an overall canton which had poor contrast with the field. Nevertheless, the majority of the canton's perimeter had good contrast, since it was over a wide, good-contrast bordure. However, if the canton had good contrast with the field, it would be forced to have poor contrast with the bordure, hindering overall visibility. There was, ultimately, no winning situation: either it was SENA-legal and poor contrast overall (undermining the tincture requirements of Core Style), or it was contrary to SENA, yet visibly good contrast (supporting those same tincture requirements).

Commenters were asked to consider whether we should relax SENA's contrast requirements for augmentations and, if so, what limits if any should be imposed. Period evidence illustrating contrast in cases like this was sought, and a number of examples were identified by Iago Coquille.

A late 16th century English armorial manuscript, University of Victoria Library Ms.Brown.Eng.2, offered several examples of cantons (presumably augmentations) and one escutcheon of pretense, with low contrast. In its sole example of a canton surmounting a bordure, the canton has good contrast with the field but generally overlays low contrast elements.

• Argent, a cross sable and a canton ermine
• Or, two bars gules and on a canton argent an escallop sable
• Or, a bend gules, and on a canton argent two bars and issuant from the chiefmost bar a demi-wolf sable
• Or, a chevron gules and a canton ermine
• Argent, fretty gules and overall a canton ermine
• Or, fretty gules and overall on a canton per pale ermine and Or a ship sable
• Or, three (four?) roundels azure and a canton ermine
• Argent, fretty gules a bordure engrailed sable, overall on a canton gules a lion passant Or
• Argent, a cross flory sable, in canton an inescutcheon Or chevronelly gules

From a Belgian armorial dating to the 1st half of the 15th century (Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, ms. II 6570).

• Azure, two (three?) fleurs-de-lys argent, overall on a canton gules a lion argent
• Azure, three fleurs-de-lys argent, overall on an inescutcheon gules three fleurs-de-lys argent
• Argent, in cross five escallops gules, overall on a canton Or an inescutcheon [...] the canton surmounted by a bend component argent and gules
• Or, on a saltire gules an inescutcheon gules charged with two (three?) lion's sable

... as well as several others.

In addition, Þorfinn Hund also provided the example of the arms of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, augmented for his services at the Battle of Flodden, 1513: Gules, on a bend between six crosses-crosslet fitchy argent an escutcheon Or charged with a demi-lion pierced through the mouth by an arrow within a double tressure flory counterflory gules.

Given this support, we are relaxing the contrast requirements for augmentations of arms, permitting charged cantons and inescutcheons of pretense to have poor contrast with whatever they happen to overlay, whether the field or another charge, provided identifiability is maintained. Despite the example provided of an entirely no-contrast case, we choose at this time not to relax the contrast requirements to that extent. https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/12/20-12cl.html

April 2009 LoAR - rule of contrast:

Volkmar Katzbalger. Augmentation. Per pale sable and gules, two halberd heads addorsed and in chief a lucy Or and for augmentation on a chief purpure issuant from the line of division a demi-cross of Calatrava throughout Or. There were calls to return this for violating Section VII.2.b (Contrast Requirements) of the Rules for Submission, specifically VII.2.b.i, which says "The field must have good contrast with every charge placed directly on it and with charges placed overall." However, section VIII.7 says that "The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original armory." Given the numerous examples in Stemmario Trivulziano of chiefs of allegiance which have poor contrast or absolutely no contrast, and the numerous registrations of charged cantons which would violate this rule were it not for a contrasting border, we are following period practice and allowing this augmentation to break the rule of tincture as they did. In the future, a contrasting bordure or charge throughout which sets the augmentation off from the field will be allowed for augmentations, though not in normal practice. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2009/04/09-04lar.html

General Rules:<

April 2015 - On Augmentations of Arms

A return this month prompted us to give a few reminders about augmentations of arms. The Administrative Handbook covers the topic in section IID3 and SENA in section A3A3. An augmentation is an addition to the registered device given as an honor. Thus the base coat for the augmentation must be the correct blazon of the registered device, not a badge, not a variant of the device. We recommend heralds working on augmentations to check the registered emblazon of the registered device to ensure that the blazon is correct. Also, although the right to an augmentation is given by the kingdom, its suitability for use and registration with a specific device must be approved by the College of Arms. An augmentation adds complexity and augmented devices are often allowed to violate certain style rules, such as allowing charges on tertiary charges or a complexity count of greater than eight, as long as the identifiability of the design is maintained. However, augmentations may not violate the rules on contrast. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2015/04/15-04cl.html#2

October 2003 Cover Letter - Augmentation Overview:

From Wreath: Augmentations This was a busy month for augmentations. An augmentation is one of the highest honors bestowed by the SCA: it behooves us to make policies for augmentations as clear as possible, so that the excellent people receiving the honor have as little difficulty with registering augmentations as possible. Therefore, while the ensuing discussion mostly addresses issues raised by the augmentations this month, it also addresses some other general issues and policies that arise frequently when considering augmentations. We particularly direct kingdom heralds to the sections on "Kingdom Badges that are Designated as an Augmentation" and "Augmentations and Appropriate Content", as they set forth some previously unstated policies and interpretations. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/10/03-10cl.html

Who Specifies the Form of an Augmentation

We remind 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: > [Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue", i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that the College may not be compelled to register that which is in violation of its existing rules, this submission is now formally returned. (LoAR February 1988) >

Augmentations and General Paperwork

If a person's device changes at the same time that an augmentation is added, the armorial changes need to be performed in two separate submissions actions, each with its own set of submission forms: one for the change of the device (without the augmentation) and one depicting the changed device and adding the augmentation: "... as we protect both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000).

Augmentations and General Conflict Issues

RfS VIII.7 states, "If [the 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." This means that the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a separate piece of armory. Note that the converse is not true: it is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing augmentations that have the appearance of being independent armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation should not be used separately from the arms." Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's augmentation. Note also that, per RfS VIII.7, it is not necessary to check augmentations for conflict when they do not have the appearance of an independent display of armory. If someone's augmentation takes the form ... and for augmentation, in chief a rose argent//, the rose in chief does not have the appearance of an independent display of armory, and one does not have to check it for conflict as if it were //(Fieldless) A rose argent. We also remind the College that augmented arms are to be checked for conflict both with and without the augmentation: "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" (LoAR September 1992, pg. 26).

Augmentations and Letters of Permission

The SCA has previously registered augmentations that appeared to be independent armory and were in conflict with - or identical to - a badge owned by a kingdom or some other entity. In these cases, it has been necessary for the person with the augmentation to have a letter of permission from the owner of the badge in order to register that augmentation. As noted in the LoAR of September 1995 regarding an augmentation (which was in conflict with armory belonging to a kingdom):

• For the ... 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 a LoI (which was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written letter of permission to conflict.

Such permission was explicitly stated to be present in the first of a (relatively) long line of augmentations from the crown of Caid where the recipient elected to use the Caidan War Banner on a charged canton or escutcheon, per the LoAR of October 1995: "A letter of permission from the Crown of Caid for the use of the War Banner of Caid as an augmentation has been received by the Laurel office." These letters of permission to conflict have not always been mentioned in the LoAR, but are present with the paperwork.

Kingdom Badges That Are Designated as an Augmentation

In the case where a kingdom has a badge designated as an augmentation, it seems appropriate to rule that a person or entity with an augmentation from that kingdom may be assumed to have permission for his/her/its augmentation to conflict with the specifically-designated augmentation badge. Kingdoms that already have badges that are serving as an augmentation should strongly consider adding the "augmentation" designation to those badges, to cut down on subsequent paperwork with letters of permission to conflict. A kingdom badge that is designated as an augmentation may not imply any particular rank or status for the bearer. It is appropriate for a kingdom to consider adding an "augmentation" designation to a populace badge, ensign, war banner, or a previously undesignated badge without reserved charges. It is not appropriate to add an "augmentation" designation to an order, award, or office badge, or to an undesignated badge with a reserved charge. The augmentation of the Kingdom of Meridies, (Fieldless) Three mullets one and two argent, was registered in the LoAR of March 1996 with the following comments: "This is an augmentation of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it deems worthy. It's [sic] purpose is not the same as a fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be displayed on a field by the recipients." These LoAR comments referred to the fact that the armory contained charges that were not conjoined. Then, as now, such armory was illegal style on a fieldless badge per RfS VIII.5. But, because an augmentation will always be displayed on a field, a designated augmentation may break these fieldless style rules. The other constraints in RfS VIII.5 could also be broken for an augmentation, so a kingdom could register an augmentation of (Fieldless) a bordure embattled ... or (Fieldless) a bend charged with ..., even though these would not be registerable designs for any other type of fieldless armory. It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that the kingdom would have. As an example, hypothesize that the Kingdom of Atlantia chose to designate its badge, (Fieldless) A unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent, as an augmentation. The SCA's current policies do not allow new registrations of unicornate natural seahorses without the use of the grandfather clause. A hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could place the designated augmentation on any suitable place on his device. If he already had an uncharged canton Or on his device, he could create the augmentation for augmentation, on the canton a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent. However, a hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an augmentation could not use the designated badge to create the augmentation for augmentation, on a canton Or a unicornate natural seahorse erect azure finned argent. This augmentation would not be identical to the designated augmentation, and thus, the kingdom's grandfathering would not extend to this augmentation.

Augmentations and Appropriate Content

The September 1995 LoAR ruled in general that no piece of armory could be exactly duplicated as an augmentation: "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." However, this portion of ruling has been overruled by the October 1995 acceptance of the Caidan War Banner as an augmentation, and by successive similar registrations. At this point, in some cases augmentations may be identical to armory belonging to a group (or an individual). However, the point that an augmentation must not appear to be a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess" (RfS XI) is one that must be considered whenever an augmentation is registered. Precedent notes that, in at least some cases, the use of a badge of office as part of an augmentation may give an incorrect implication that the holder of the augmentation is the holder of the office. Since that statement will not always be true, the augmentation is not allowed in that circumstance. The LoAR of September 1995 dealt with an augmentation where the owner of the augmentation quartered her original coat with a quartering that was a tinctured version of a kingdom herald's seal. That ruling read, in the immediately pertinent part: > The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ... Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons... [one reason that] 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 ... Principal Herald, which does then fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI). We also believe that any augmentation that incorporates the badge of an office in a fashion that resembles an independent display of arms is likely to give a very strong implication that the submitter holds that office, even outside of the context of marshalling. We note that there is no pattern of use of badges of office used in the SCA as augmentations. Only one such augmentation has been registered (a sinister canton of the arms of the Exchequer of the West registered in 1979). Therefore, we rule that it is not permissible for an augmentation to exactly duplicate a badge of office, even with a letter of permission. Precedent holds that individuals may not register an augmentation that uses an inappropriate reserved charge, as it would be such a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess". Per the LoAR of April 1992: "Laurel wreaths have always been reserved in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted to those who may rightfully bear them." It also seems appropriate to consider whether an augmentation may ever duplicate the badge of an order or award. Such an augmentation gives a strong implication that the owner of the augmentation is a member of that order, or a holder of that award. We at this time rule that such an augmentation cannot be registered if the owner of the augmentation is not a member of that order or does not hold that award, even if he has a letter of permission from the branch that owns the badge. We leave open the question of whether it is ever appropriate to register an augmentation that is identical to an award or order badge.

• http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/10/03-10cl.html

Collected Precedents:

• 2nd Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (April - August 2011) - [AUGMENTATIONS]
• 1st Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - [AUGMENTATIONS]
• The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - [AUGMENTATIONS]
• The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Augmentations]
• The 1st Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [AUGMENTATIONS]
• The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [AUGMENTATIONS]
• The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [Augmentations]
• The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) - [Augmentations]
• The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [AUGMENTATION]
• The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) -
  • [AUGMENTATIONS] (first part),
  • [AUGMENTATIONS] (second part)
• The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [Augmentation]
• The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [Single HTML Document]
• The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [AUGMENTATION]
• The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [AUGMENTATION]
• The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [AUGMENTATION]

---