Voided

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace 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. Revised {$revisiondate}.

---

[Illustration from period source]

[Illustration from PicDic]

Illustration/s from Brickbat's Armorial Stash - [[1]]:

Pennsic Traceable Art Project:

---

Glossary of Terms:

Voidable Charge - A charge which can be voided, that is, have the middle cut out, allowing the field or other tincture to show through. The cutout portion should both be of the same shape as the charge and follow along the outline of the charge. In general, a simple geometric charge such as a pale//, //roundel//, or a //heart// is voidable, while a charge with a more complex outline such as a //lion// is not. Charges in the center of the field are considered voidable and charges elsewhere on the field are not. This does not, of course, affect charges that are voided as part of their nature, such as mascles and annulets. //See also Fimbriation. [[2]]

---

Parker's Heraldry:

Voided, (fr. vidé): this term applied to ordinaries and subordinaries signifies that the middle is removed so that the field is visible through it; thus a plain chevron voided has the appearance of two couple-closes, and a bend voided that of a pair of cottises. Heralds, however, make some minute distinctions, and these will be found noticed under [[3]] voided.

The voiding of certain ordinaries is of ancient practice. It will be observed that the cross ‘recercelée’ is sometimes [[4]] ‘voide’ (See §32). So also ‘faux crois’ signifies a cross voided(see §6), while faux lozenge in one roll is used for a [[5]], though the mascle itself is sometimes found [[6]] [[7]]. See [[8]] and Masculy. Again, faux rondelets are found meaning [[9]], (see under Roundels); and the ‘faux escocheon’ is now blazoned an [[10]]. In some cases the term percée, or pierced, is used to mean the same as [[11]]; and in others voided is used of a [[12]] when [[13]] is meant; but as a rule the piercing involves only a small aperture, and generally circular, while voiding involves a larger aperture, and one following the outline of the charge. When the term is used by itself the tincture of the opening is understood to be that of the field, but an ordinary may be [[14]] of another tincture. > Argent, a cross voided and double cottised sable, within a bordure or–BROMHOLME PRIORY, Norfolk. > Monsire Gerard SALVAYN, port d’argent; au cheif de sable deux molletts d’or, voydes vert–Roll, temp. ED. III. > Monsire GORNILL, port d’or; cheif sable, deux molletts d’argent, voydes de gules–Ibid. > Argent, two bars voided gules; over all a bend sable–BURTON. > > [[15]]

---

Heraldic Primer:

Voiding - http:heraldry.sca.org/primer/variants.html#voided The term voided applies to an ordinary or other simple geometric charge where only the outline of the charge is visible.

Sable, a fess voided argent.
File:Http:heraldry.sca.org/primer/afessvoided.gif	Sable, a chevron //voided argent.
File:Http:heraldry.sca.org/primer/achevronvoided.gif	Sable, a bend //voided// argent //.
File:Http://heraldry.sca.org/primer/abendvoided.gif
===SENA A.3.C.===
====C. Voiding and Fimbriation:====
Voiding and fimbriation are terms that describe the situation in which the interior of the charge is a different color than a strip around the outside of the charge. The term voiding is used for the case in which the interior part of the charge is the same color as the field. The term fimbriation is used for the case in which the interior part of the charge is of a different color than the field.

Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with ordinaries or simple geometric charges when they are part of a primary charge group. Peripheral ordinaries may not be voided or fimbriated, nor may other secondary, tertiary, or overall charges. All central ordinaries may be fimbriated, even those with complex lines, as long as there are no breaks in the outline of the ordinary. All central ordinaries with more than two ends, such as palls//, //crosses//, and //saltires, may be voided, even those with complex lines, as long as there are no breaks in the outline of the ordinary. As central ordinaries with two ends which are voided would give the unmistakable appearance of being multiple ordinaries, they may not be voided.

For example, both a cross// and //a cross engrailed// may be either voided or fimbriated. However, //a fess// may only be fimbriated; a design that appears to be a fess voided must be blazoned as //two bars//. For example, //a pale rayonny// and //a fess dancetty// may be fimbriated, while //a chevron rompu// or //a bend bevilled may not be fimbriated, as the latter are broken in their outlines.

A simple geometric charge is a charge that, when drawn at a smaller scale, will continue to match the outline of the larger charge closely. Simple geometric charges include lozenges//, //roundels//, //delfs//, and //mullets//. However, as counter examples, //estoiles// and //suns are not simple.

Voiding and fimbriation is generally used with a single central charge. For this reason, using voiding or fimbriation with charge groups that contain more than three charges will only be registered with documentation of such a pattern. Additionally, voided charges may not be registered in fieldless designs, as they do not have a field that can show through the voided portion of the charge.

For example, a design such as Azure, three delfs voided Or// would be registered, but //Azure semy of delfs voided Or// would not be. Also, while //Azure, a mullet voided argent// is registerable, //(Fieldless) A mullet voided argent is not, as the voided area would not have a defined tincture.

Charges which are voided as part of their type, such as mascles// or //mullets voided and interlaced, are not affected by these restrictions. They may even be tertiary charges or maintained charges, and may be used in fieldless designs. Armorial designs with voided or fimbriated charges must be considered for purposes of conflict as equivalent to multiple designs. See [[16]] for further details.

---

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[17]] Morsulus Heralds Website - [[18]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Restatement Wiki - [[19]] (restatements of Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

#x--Precedents:-Definition/Defining Instance:Definition/Defining Instance:

From the November 2011 Cover Letter: From Wreath: Voided (and Interlaced) Charges This month we ruled that charges that are voided as part of their definition, such as mascles and annulets, may be used in all types of charge groups. This clarifies section VIII.3 of the Rules for Submissions, which requires that "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design." This rule was interpreted in February 2011 to mean that mullets of eight points voided and interlaced were too complex to be used as a charge not in the center of the design. More recent interpretations have included mullets of five and six points voided and interlaced in this ruling, preventing their use as non-primary charges. However, as mullets of five and six points voided and interlaced can be found in period armory and are simpler and more recognizable than a mullet of eight points voided and interlaced, we have declared their voiding and interlacing to be part of their definition of type, and so they may also be used as non-primary charges. We will continue to not use the terms pentagram or pentacle, due to their possible confusion over whether or not an annulet is involved. [[20]]

#x--Precedents:-Registerability:Registerability:

April 1999 LoAR: "RfS VIII.3. notes that 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' While a heart is simple enough to fimbriate as a sole primary charge, as a tertiary it is so small as to lose identifiability when fimbriated."[1999 LoAR]

September 1997 LoAR: "Per pale gules and purpure, a unicorn passant reguardant argent, armed and crined Or between three voided western crowns Or. This is being returned for violating VIII.3. Armorial Identifiability. It states Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design. This has been taken to mean that we void primary charges only; the crowns in this submission are clearly secondaries."[1997 LoAR]

October 1996 LoAR: "According to RfS VIII.3 'Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the design.' This does not apply to tertiary charges." [1996 LoAR]

August 1993 - voided and fimbriated bordures:

Lisette de Ville. Device. Per fess purpure and vert, a dove displayed, wings inverted within a bordure argent charged with a tressure per fess purpure and vert. "The submission caused us a few minutes of heartburn. The equal width of the outer three stripes, and the fact that the central stripe is of the field, gave this the appearance of a bordure voided,// not of an //orle within a bordure.// Bordures voided and fimbriated have been disallowed since Aug 83. Playing with the widths a bit, to make this a //bordure cotised,// would be equally unacceptable. On the other hand, a //bordure charged with a tressure// is a perfectly legal design. In the end, we decided that the latter blazon is the most accurate and reproducible description of the submitted emblazon -- and since it appears to be legal, we've accepted it. It also guarantees the device to be clear of Wampage (//Azure, an eagle displayed within a double tressure argent). http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1993/08/lar.html

November 1992 Cover Letter: One of this month's submissions (Abaigeal Fairchild) brought up the issue of voided charges: when is a charge simple enough to be voided? We've long held that some charges are too complex to void or fimbriate: "You cannot void complex charges like a tyger. Voiding and fimbriation should only be used with simple charges." [WvS, 15 March 82] Our definition of "simple charges" has grown stricter over time, however: Mistress Alisoun disallowed voided pears (27 Sept 87), mullets (July 88) and hearts (Oct 88), while Master Da'ud disallowed voided triangles (June 91). Currently, the only charges that may be voided are ordinaries (as well as those charges, like annulets and mascles, that are voided by definition). It seems to me that, if roundels and lozenges were voided in period, then charges of comparable simplicity may likewise be voided. Of course, this begs the question of defining "simplicity" for purposes of voiding. (Which definition differs entirely from that of "simple geometric charge" for Rule X.4.j.ii, or "simple armory" for X.2...) The arguments presented in Abaigeal's submission provide a rule of thumb we can use. We consider voiding to have the same visual weight as adding a tertiary charge -- i.e. Sable, a cross Or voided gules// and //Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules// are interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing //chevrons voided, says "if you say voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or, surmounted of another, of such or such colour." We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can be reblazoned as On a [charge], another-- that is, if the inner line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically similar -- then it's simple enough to void. For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally well be blazoned a delf voided// or //a delf charged with a delf//; either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the other hand, are definitely //a griffin's head voided// and //a griffin's head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the griffin's head voided is not. illustration By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb, of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds) view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case law. I shall be employing it henceforth. [[21]]

#x--Precedents:-Collected Precedents:Collected Precedents:

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

---