Cross (Heraldic Charge)

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Revision as of 09:48, 23 January 2021 by Sofya (talk | contribs) (→‎Modern:)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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:

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].

[1]


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). [[2]]

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. 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. [[3]]

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. [[4]]


Collected Precedents:

Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - [[5]] The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - [[6]] 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]

Coblaith's Crosses in S.C.A. Heraldry

by Coblaith Muimnech - see http://coblaith.net/Heraldry/Crosses/default.html for most up-to-date information

Note: The information here is current through the October, 2014 [Letter of Acceptances and Returns], so far as I was able to make it.

When the term "cross" appears in a blazon and no type is specified, it refers to an ordinary made up of two lines, one horizontal and one vertical, that overlap at the center of the field. Like most other ordinaries, a cross can can use complex lines]. It can be divided into two or more tinctures]. It can be be fimbriated], voided], or cotised]. Other charges can be placed on it, or it can overlie other charges. There are no special rules for blazoning these particulars; it works the same way it works for any other ordinary.

ordinary.jpg cotised.jpg engrailed.jpg countercompony.jpg charged.jpg
Gules, a cross argent. From BSB Cod.icon. 390, folio 44 Or, a cross cotised sable. From SGS Cod. Sang 1084, folio 27 Argent, a cross engrailed gules. From BSB Cod.icon. 390, folio 792 Sable, a cross compony counter-compony Or and gules. From SGS Cod. Sang 1084, folio 35 Gules, on a cross argent five roundels gules pierced Or. from BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 26r
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020447/image_114 http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/1084/27 http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020447/image_874 http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001647/image_55


A cross, like a fess, a saltire, or a chevron, can be also be [[7]]. That is, the ends of the arms can be cut short, so that they don't reach the edges of the shield. Such crosses are simple variants of the ordinary.

Where things really begin to get complicated is in the plethora of specialty crosses] that were recognized in period heraldry as independent charges, the smaller but significant number of modern crosses] inspired by these or by period motifs or artifacts that are part of S.C.A. heraldry, and all the optional treatments] that can be used to distinguish crosses of the same types from one another. Add in the fact that the characteristics of certain types of crosses can be combined], with or without additional treatments, to create doubly- and triply-complex variants, and dealing with crosses as a category quickly becomes one of the most befuddling aspects of heraldry in the Society.

[[8]]


Per pale argent, in pile ten torteaus, and Or, on a cross couped engrailed sable five mullets argent. from BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 15v {| | [[9]] |}


Per fess sable and argent, a cross moline countercharged. from BSB Cod.icon. 273, folio 126r {| | [[10]] |}


Gules, a bend between six crosses crosslet fitchy argent. from BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 24r {| | [[11]] |}


Argent, a cross bottony nowy quadrate and on a chief Or an eagle sable. from BSB Cod.icon. 270, folio 164r {| | [[12]] |}


Quarterly argent and gules, four crosses formy counterchanged. from BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 22r {| | |- |To simplify the conflict-checking process, the sovereigns at arms have grouped a number of the most common period cross types into "famillies"]. Any cross included in one of these families is considered to be substantially changed (as defined in Part A.5] of the S.C.A's Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory) from any cross in any other family. But not every sort of cross that can be registered is included in this list, and not every pair of types that are substantially changed from one another is represented. Crosses that aren't part of any family must be compared one-to-one with each other and with family crosses when conflict checks are done. Comparisons that have been weighed by the sovereigns at arms in the past are mentioned in the precedents], but there are plenty of types of cross that they've never had reason to contrast with one another. |}


General Principles for Conflict Checking:

The sovereigns at arms have established a few general principles that can be applied when crosses are checked for conflict.

  • "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." (cover letter] to the May, 2009 LoAR)
  • "While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout versus a cross couped], for most crosses. . .we do not give such difference for couped versus [[13]]." (February, 2002 LoAR]) [There are some exceptions.]
  • "Adding or removing a. . .tertiary. . .charge group is a distinct change (DC)." (SENA Part A.5] A.5.G.2]) [A tertiary charge group is any group of charges placed entirely on other charges, which includes charges on crosses.]

General Rules about Period Style:

And there are some general rules about crosses and period style, including these:

  • "A cross of any type should either be throughout] on all arms or not throughout on any of them." (July, 2004 LoAR])
  • "The default crusilly// is of crosses crosslet." (August, 2002 LoAR]) ["Crusilly" means "semy of crosses"--that is, 'having multiple crosses scattered over it.']
  • "While SCA-variant charges are often considered acceptable ('period-compatible', as it were), we draw the line at variants of SCA-variants." (November, 1992 LoAR])
  • "The SCA allows crosses of all sorts to be charged. . .." ([2002 LoAR])
  • "A cross throughout] which overlies the line of division on a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of marshalling] by quartering, even if the cross throughout is treated with a complex line] (such as engrailed) or has complex ends (such as formy] or moline].) A cross which is not throughout, or which does not overlie the quarterly line of division (such as a Tau] cross), will remove the appearance of marshalling unless evidence is presented that the cross under discussion was used for marshalling in period heraldry." (June, 2003 LoAR])
  • Because, "It is poor style to use two similar but non-identical charges in a single group," the use of two different types of crosses in a single charge group is grounds for return. (July, 1991 LoAR], June, 1995 LoAR])
  • "[A]ny non-ordinary cross used as a charge, is not an ordinary] and thus cannot be counterchanged] over an ordinary. . .." (May, 2006 LoAR])
  • On a tower or castle, "Cross that appear to be arrow slits, such as plain crosses and crosses pometty], will be treated as architectural details - not as tertiary charges," (January, 2008 LoAR]), and "artistic details are allowed to have poor contrast," (November, 2009 LoAR]).

These broad ideas, combined with the precedents related to specific cross types that I've collected in the tables that make up the bulk of this article, should help anyone who's considering submitting armory that contains one or more crosses get a head start on researching any issues with them that are likely to arise. Use the lists below to navigate directly to information on a cross type that interests you, or browse through the images on the table pages if you aren't sure what the cross you're considering is called. Note: I've tried to index every term that appears in a registered blazon or precedent, so that someone looking for more information on one can easily find it. That means that some types of crosses are listed more than once, under different terms that have been used to describe them. So if you click on one term and find yourself routed to a table entry headed with another, read the entry. Odds are the term you're investigating is an alternate blazon. Table of Crosses and Modifications Mentioned in Precedents or Registered without Comment by the S.C.A. College of Arms

====[|Period Crosses]====
(those marked "F" are included in conflict-checking families) ====Modern Crosses====
(including those used only in the S.C.A.) ====Disallowed Crosses]==== ====Modifications]====
cross anchory] [F]
cross avellane]
cross billety] [F]
cross bottony] [F]
cross bourdonny] [F]
Cross of Calatrava] [F]
Cross of Calvary] [F]
Cross of Cleves] [F]
cross clechy] [F]
cross couped] [F]
cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm]
cross crescenty]
cross crosslet] [F]
doubled] cross [F]
double-fitched]
doubly pommeled]
cross erminy]
fillet] cross
cross floretty] [F]
cross flory] / fleury [F]
cross formy] [F]
cross fourchetty] [F]
cross fourchy] [F]
cross of four ermine spots]
cross glandular]
cross graded] [F]
Greek] cross [F]
Greek Orthodox] cross
cross gringoly] [F]
Cross of Jerusalem]
key] cross
Cross of Lorraine] [F]
cross lozenged]
Maltese] Cross [F]
miller] cross [F]
cross mill-rind] [F]
cross moline] [F]
Norse sun] cross
passion] cross
cross patonce] [F]
patriarchal] cross [F]
cross pointed]
cross pomelly] [F]
cross pommy] [F]
cross portate]
cross potent] [F]
cross potent rebated in annulo]
cross paty] [F]
cross recercelly] [F]
Russian Orthodox] cross
Cross of Santiago] [F]
Cross of St. Ant[hony]] [F]
Cross of St. Julian]
cross sarcelly] [F]
cross swallowtailed]
tau] cross [F]
Cross of Toulouse] [F]
cross trefly] [F] Crosses Not Composed of Other Charges]
cross alisée]
ankh]
cross annuletted]
crux ansata]
cross arrondi]
cross barby]
Bowen] cross
Canterbury] cross
Celtic] cross
Cross of Coldharbour]
Coptic] cross
cross ending in four pheons]
cross estoile]
cross gurgity]
cross potent arched]
cross potent rebated in annulo]
Cross of Saint Brigid]
Cross of Samildanach]
crux stellata]


Crosses of Charges] Joined End-to-End]

Crossed at the Middle]

| cross alisée formy] |- |capital] cross |- |Cross of Cerdaña] |- |crosshair] cross |- |cross crosslet with extra crossbars] |- |cross of flames] |- |cross formy convex] |- |fylfot] cross |- |Latin cross shifted] to dexter or sinister |- |non]-cross |- |Papal] cross |- |cross patee botonny] |- |cross patée concave] |- |cross patty convex] |- |Red Cross] cross |- |San Damiano] cross |- |star]-cross |- |Ukranian sun ]cross || "stacking]" crosses of different types |}


Based on Characteristics of Named Cross Types

Other Registered Modifications


[[14]] Modifications

  • barbed at the foot
  • bearing a figure of the same tincture
  • draped of a cloth
  • ending in spirals

Defined Modifications] Not Yet Registered* enflamed {| | |- |This page was written and is maintained by [Muimnech], who created and owns the copyright to all portions not attributed to others. You may print or electronically copy it for your own use or to pass on to others, provided you do not seek to profit from its distribution. |- |Click to visit Coblaith's homepage] or the index to her heraldry articles]. |- |---- |- |Click any of the above illustrations to see them in their original contexts. The cited manuscripts are: |- |* BSB Cod.icon 270: a book of arms of northern Italian cities and Milanese nobility made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 273: a book of arms of the Venetian nobility made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 291: a book of English arms made in England in the middle of the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 390: an armorial of the Holy Roman Empire made by Stephen Brechtel in Nürnberg between 1554 and 1568, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* SGS Cod. Sang. 1084: an armorial made by Hans Haggenberg for Ulrich Rösch, abbot of Saint Gall's, in the 15th century, now in the collection of the St. Gall abbey library |- |---- |- |---- |- |=Coblaith's Crosses in S.C.A. Heraldry: Period Crosses= |- |by Coblaith Muimnech -// http://coblaith.net/Heraldry/Crosses/period.html |}


Article as of December 2014:

Period crosses (i.e., those that were used in heraldry in the 16th century or before) have certain advantages over all others where both considerations of style and conflict-checking are concerned. Specifically, "Armorial elements are registerable if they are attested in period European armory.. . .Elements used in arms, in badges, and in crests all meet this standard," and, "Types of charges considered distinct in period are considered distinctly changed." (the S.C.A's Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory, Parts A.2.B.1] and A.5.G.4])

I have done my best to identify all period cross types registered in the S.C.A. or mentioned in S.C.A. precedents, and to collect information on them on this page. In some cases, where I've been able neither to find a period emblazon showing a particular cross type nor find a precedent explicitly describing it as modern or period, I've had to guess at whether it belonged here or with the modern crosses]. If you spot an error, please let me know. (But don't expect me to take your word that a cross is "ancient". I'll need to see some evidence that it was used in period heraldry to move it here.)

These tables don't necessarily include every precedent related to any given type of cross that was ever issued. I intentionally left out those that have been explicitly overruled and avoided including multiple precedents that state and re-state the same information, and it is always possible that I've missed a ruling here or there by accident. Please consult the precedents] yourself if you need comprehensive information on everything that's ever been said about a particular cross.

Please note: Under "rulings and precedents" in the tables below, the phrase "ordinary cross" is often used where the unmodified "cross" would be used in blazon, to avoid any confusion that might arise from a statement like, "A cross formy throughout is significantly different from a cross."

Period Crosses Grouped into Families for Conflict Checking

Any cross included in any family is considered substantially changed (as defined in the S.C.A's Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory, Part GP.4.D]) from any cross in any other family, per the cover letter] to the May, 2009 LoAR (where the term "substantially different" is used). Every such cross must, however, still be compared individually with other crosses in its own family and with crosses not part of any family.

family sample emblazons rulings and precedents
=====#coupedfamilyplain crosses couped, including [[15]] and humetty=====


There has been one registration in which the term "Greek cross" was used to blazon an equal-armed cross couped. {| | [[16]] |}


Argent, three crosses couped gules. BSB Cod.icon. 390, folio 851 {| | [[17]] |}


Argent, a Latin cross couped sable. BSB Cod.icon. 267, folio 93r {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* "At this time we will formally adopt the definition that any ordinary humetty is couped parallel to the edge of the field. It is an artistic variation of couped; no difference will be granted between the two." ([2011 LoAR]) |- |* The use of an inverted] Latin] cross is, in and of itself, not offensive (October, 1998 LoAR]). |- |* Special rules apply to the use of crosses couped gules]. |- |* On a tower or castle, "Cross that appear to be arrow slits, such as plain crosses. . .will be treated as architectural details - not as tertiary charges," (January, 2008 LoAR]), and "artistic details are allowed to have poor contrast," (November, 2009 LoAR]). |- |* A cross couped is significantly different from an ordinary cross (January, 2003 LoAR]). |}


related to charges outside the family:

| |- |^ || [[18]] |- |cross humetty || ||^ |- | =====#floryfamilycrosses flory, floretty, patonce, clechy, Calatrava, and Santiago===== |}


"a Cross of Cleves is a Latin] Cross fleury" (September 1973]) {| | [[19]] |- |Gules, a cross flory argent and in canton an escallop Or. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 24v || [[20]] |- |Gules, a cross floretty argent. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 290, folio 28r || on charges within the family only: |- |* "Crosses flory may be both voided] and fimbriated]. . .." ([]=December, 2009 LoAR]) |- |* A cross clechy may be voided. (December, 2007 LoAR]) |- |* "The cross of Santiago is one of the more variable forms of period crosses. . .. The bottom arm of the cross is always fitchy]. . ..The side arms are an often-flamboyant sort of flory. The top arm ranges from a standard flory, to a subdued form of flory, to a round- or card-pique-shaped 'sword hilt' shape." (July, 2003 LoAR]) ". . .[A]n examination of crosses of Santiago from period or shortly after show that the bottom arm of the cross does not necessarily have a flare in the lower limb.. . .We are therefore adjusting our definition of a cross of Santiago to include crosses without a sword-shaped flare to the lower limb." (December, 2013 LoAR]) |- |* The difference between a Cross of Santiago and a cross flory fitchy] is a flare in the lower limb of the latter (November, 2008 LoAR]). ". . .[T]here is not sufficient difference between a cross of Santiago and a cross fleury fitchy. We have traditionally not granted difference for the fitching of a cross." (December, 2013 LoAR]) |- |* ". . .[A] cross of Calatrava does not have the arms intersecting anywhere except at the center: the arms come straight out, split, each piece heads back towards the center, but the arms do not touch anywhere after the split." (April, 2011 LoAR]) |- |* |- |* A cross clechy is significantly different from a cross fleury (July, 1990 LoAR]) and from a Cross of Santiago (November, 2005 LoAR]). |- |* A cross fleury is not significantly different from a cross patonce (May, 1994 LoAR]), a Cross of Santiago (December, 1997 LoAR]), or a Cross of Calatrava (January, 2005 LoAR]). |- |* A Latin] cross flory [or a Cross of Cleves--see the quote in the far left column] is not significantly different from a Cross of Santiago (September, 1996 LoAR]). |- |* A properly drawn cross patonce is splayed along its arms, not just at the ends. (January, 2012 LoAR]) A cross patonce is not significantly different from a Cross of Santiago ([March, 2001 LoAR]) or a cross clechy (July, 2004 LoAR]). |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* "A key cross] is a period charge found in the arms of Pisa. It is defined as a//cross clechy pommety] at the points//." (January, 2006 LoAR]) |- |* "The cross of Cerdaña] is a minor artistic variant of a //cross clechy//" (July, 2002 LoAR]) |- |* "The cross formy] floretty] may be found in period armory. ." (December, 2003 LoAR]) |- |* "A properly drawn cross formy fitched at the foot would have the arms clearly separated." (July, 2014 LoAR]) |- |* A cross patonce is substantially different from a Bowen] cross ([September, 2004 LoAR]) and significantly different from a cross [avellane] (September, 2009 LoAR]). |- |* A cross clechy is substantially different from a Cross of Saint Brigid](September, 2006 LoAR]) |- |* A cross of Santiago is substantially different from two links of chain fretted in cross] and from an ankh] (November, 2005 LoAR]). |- |* A cross fleury is significantly different from a cross of four ermine spots](December, 2002 LoAR]), four fleurs-de-lys in cross (August, 1993 LoAR]), four fleurs-de-lys bases to center (June, 2007 LoAR]) and a Celtic] cross (January, 2000 LoAR]), but not significantly different from a Cross of Calatrava (January, 2005 LoAR]). |- |* A cross crosslet] fleury is significantly different from a crux stellata] (July, 1996 LoAR]). |- |* A cross [swallowtailed] is significantly different from a cross patonce and a cross fleury (March, 1993 LoAR]). |- |* A Cross of Calatrava is substantially different from a cross of four ermine spots] (March, 2011 LoAR]), but not significantly different from a cross [of four anchors] (September, 1990 LoAR]) or a cross fleury (January, 2005 LoAR]). |- |* Note: A cross clechy has a lot in common with a cross [lozenged]. |- |^ || [[21]] |- |cross patonce |- |Joseph Foster's 1902 Some Feudal Coats of Arms, page 125 || [[22]] |- |cross clechy |- |Volume III of William Berry's 1828 Encyclopædia Heraldica, Plate XXXV ||^ |- |^ || [[23]] |- |a cross of Santiago issuant from a mount between two escallops |- |BSB Cod.icon. 308, folio 41r || [[24]] |- |Cross of Calatrava |- |derived from [image] by WarX available under a GNU Free Documentation License ||^ |- | =====#crossletfamilycrosses crosslet and bottony===== |}


There was one registration, in 1973, of a cross bottony blazoned as a cross "trefly". A cross crosslet saltirewise (i.e., rotated 45 degrees, so that the members form an "x" instead of a "t") is at least sometimes blazoned as a "Cross of Saint Julian". {| | [[25]] |- |Or, a cross crosslet sable. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 392 d, folio 141v || File:Http://coblaith.net/Heraldry/Crosses/bottony.jpg |- |Sable, a cross bottony Or. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 308 u, folio 209r || on charges within the family only: |- |* "It is important to recall that the cross bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form predominantly in later artwork." (August, 2002 LoAR]) Consequentially, a cross crosslet is not significantly different from a cross bottony ([http:heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1999/12/lar.html December, 1999 LoAR]]). |- |* "Black Stag has shown that, in period, a cross crosslet/bottony fitchy] had a bottom limb significantly longer than the other three. Thus these do not need to be blazoned //Latin]//." (August, 2007 LoAR]) |- |* A cross crossletted only on the upper three arms has no difference from a standard cross crosslet. (January, 2013 LoAR]) |}


related to charges outside the family:

  • A cross crosslet is substantially different from a cross of four anchors](September, 1990 LoAR]) and from a Bowen] cross ([htt:p//heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2006/10/06-10lar.html#281 October, 2006 LoAR]]).
  • A cross crosslet is significantly different from a Celtic] cross (December, 1998 LoAR]).
  • A cross crosslet fleury] is significantly different from a crux stellata] (July, 1996 LoAR]).
  • A patriarchal] cross bottony] throughout] is significantly different from a cross bottony and a cross crosslet (February, 1994 LoAR]).
  • A cross bottony or crosslet is not significantly different from a cross of four swords conjoined at the points] (July, 2004]). Introducing a little space between the points of four swords in cross, pommels outward, might not be enough to create a significant difference, either, if the overall impression is of a single cross (July, 2005 LoAR]).
  • A cross bottony is not significantly different from a cross doubly pommeled]. (April, 2010 LoAR])
  • "No documentation was provided that [a cross patee bottony]], which looks like a cross bottony with added flanges, was a reasonable variant of period crosses." (July, 1999 LoAR])
  • "A [doubled cross crosslet] appears on page 416 of Raneke, Svenska Medeltidsvapen//. Another appears in 1548 issuant from a trimount as the arms of Hungary on plate 92 of //Vigil Rabers Neustifter Wappenbuch//, by Harwick W. Arch. It is therefore registerable and not a step from period practice." (April, 2010 LoAR])
  • "There is substantial difference between a cross glandular] and a cross of Saint Julian." (July, 2012 LoAR]) {|

| |- | =====#molinefamilycrosses moline, sarcelly, recercelly, anchory, fourchy, fourchetty, and miller===== |- |Note: "Anchory" is a term sometimes used to describe a cross moline with very curly ends. "Sarcelly" and "recercelly" are alternate terms (the latter, at least, no longer used in the S.C.A.) for a cross moline disjointed. |}


A miller cross is sometimes blazoned as a "cross mill-rind". The cross fourchetty was not mentioned in the original letter defining cross families, but was added in the March, 2012 LoAR]. {| | [[26]] |- |Argent, a cross moline sable. |- |BSB Cod. icon. 390, folio 582 || [[27]] |- |Argent, a cross moline sable. |- |BSB Cod. icon. 307, folio 65 || on charges within the family only: |- |* "Recercely" is an ambiguous term and should not be used in S.C.A. blazon (September, 1995 LoAR]). |- |* "A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate." (July, 1999 LoAR]) |- |* "Crosses moline disjointed have unmistakably forked and curled ends." "It should be noted that when charges are put on a cross moline disjointed, they obscure the identifiability of the cross somewhat;. . .Special care should be taken with the artwork to preserve identifiability of all elements of the armory." (April, 2002 LoAR]) |- |* ". . .the ends of a cross moline are pointed and deeply curved. . ."; a similar cross with the ends couped flat and only slightly curved should be blazoned "a cross fourchy" (January, 2004 LoAR]) |- |* A cross moline is not significantly different from a cross miller (April, 1986 LoAR]). |- |* The cross fourchetty is significantly different from a cross moline. (March, 2012 LoAR]) |}


related to charges outside the family:

There is registered one piece of armory containing"[millrinds in cross]" in which the arrangement is virtually indistinguishable from a cross moline nowy quadrate] square-pierced]. {| | |- |^ || [[28]] |- |Argent, a cross moline sable. |- |BSB Cod. icon. 390, folio 747 || [[29]] |- |Argent, a cross moline sable. |- |BSB Cod. icon 392 d, folio 149 ||^ |- |^ || [[30]] |- |Azure, an orle of crosses bottony, overall a cross moline disjointed gules. |- |from a photo of 16th-century stained glass on Plate 20 of F. Sydney Eden's 1927 The Collection of Heraldic Stained Glass at Ronaele Manor || [[31]] |}


Argent, a cross fourchetty sable. BSB Cod. icon. 390, folio 500 {| |^ |- |^ || [[32]] |- |cross fourchy |- |Volume III of William Berry's 1828 Encyclopædia Heraldica, Plate XXXIII || File:Http://coblaith.net/Heraldry/Crosses/miller.jpg |- |miller cross |- |Volume III of William Berry's 1828 Encyclopædia Heraldica, Plate XXXIII ||^ |- | =====#formyfamilycrosses formy / paty===== |- |Note: "Paty" is used here in the usual S.C.A. sense, as an alternative (now disallowed but used in some older blazons) to the term "formy". It does not refer to anything in the moline family.// |||| [[33]] |}


Azure, a cross formy Or. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 191v {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* Because it is an ambiguous term, the use of "paty" in S.C.A. armory has been abandoned (cover letter to the August, 1986 LoAR, as quoted in the[[34]] of the S.C.A. College of Arms for the tenure of Baldwin of Erebor). |- |* ". . .[A] cross formy should have the arms splaying outwards from the center, not just at the very end." ([2012 LoAR]) |}


| |- | =====#doubledfamilycrosses doubled, patriarchal, and Lorraine===== |}


In December of 1991 a "Lithuanian cross" was registered. In the May, 2009 LoAR], it was described as "a cross couped that has two horizontal crossbars of equal length each equally distant from the ends of the vertical bar," and reblazoned "a double cross". {| | [[36]] |}


Sable, a doubled cross argent. BSB Cod.icon. 265, folio 65v {| | [[37]] |- |Argent, a cross Lorraine sable. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 265, folio 62v || on charges within the family only: |- |* "Crosses patriarchal may not be fimbriated. . .." (July, 2010 LoAR]) |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* A patriarchal cross is substantially different from an ordinary cross ([2000 LoAR]). |- |* A tau]// cross double-crossed] potent at the foot] is significantly different from a double cross (February, 1991 LoAR]). |- |* A cross Lorraine is significantly different from a Russian Orthodox] cross (December, 2004 LoAR]). |- |* A patriarchal cross bottony] throughout] is significantly different from a cross bottony] and a cross crosslet] (February, 1994 LoAR]). |- |* "A [doubled cross crosslet] appears on page 416 of Raneke, Svenska Medeltidsvapen//. Another appears in 1548 issuant from a trimount as the arms of Hungary on plate 92 of //Vigil Rabers Neustifter Wappenbuch//, by Harwick W. Arch. It is therefore registerable and not a step from period practice." (April, 2010 LoAR]) |- |^ || [[38]] |}


Per pale sable, an eagle dimidiated of the line of division Or, and gules, a patriarchal cross formy argent. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 167r {| | ||^ |- | =====#potentfamilythe cross potent / billety===== |- |Note: "Billety" is, in this case, nothing more than an alternative way of saying "potent".// |||| [[39]] |}


Gules, a cross potent ermine. BSB Cod.icon. 291, folio 23r {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* A cross potent is too complex to fimbriate] (December, 1995 LoAR]). |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* "In the SCA, a Cross of Jerusalem] is a cross potent between four crosses couped]." ([http//heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1982/05/82-05lar.htm May, 1982 LoAR]]) |- |* A cross potent is significantly different from a cross of four anchors](September, 1990 LoAR]). |- |* A cross potent quadrate] is significantly different from a Canterbury] cross (October, 1994 LoAR]). |- | =====#taufamilythe tau cross===== |}


There have been a few registrations in which a tau cross was blazoned a "Cross of St. Anthony" or a "Cross of St. Antony" {| | [[40]] |}


Azure, a tau cross Or. BSB Cod.icon. 392 d, folio 141r {| | [[41]] |- |Quarterly azure, a straight tau cross throughout, and Or, a dog sejant erect sable perched on a mount gules. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 307, page 142 || on charges within the family only: |- |* "A straight tau cross looks like a capital T. A normal tau cross has formy]arms." (March, 1982 LoAR]) |- |* If a tau cross were throughout], ". . .the limbs would reach the edges of the shield, but the crossbar would not become the 'chief.'" (May, 1986 LoAR]) |- |* A tau// cross swallowtailed] is unusual, but "has been formed on the model of the Maltese] cross" and is therefore acceptable for use in Society armory (May, 1989 LoAR]). |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* A tau// cross is substantialy different from an ordinary cross (November, 2002 LoAR]). |- |* A tau// cross double-crossed] potent at the foot] is significantly different from a double cross] (1991 LoAR]). |- | =====#Calvaryfamilythe Cross of Calvary===== |}


There is one registration from 1979 in which a cross mounted on steps is blazoned "grady" instead of "of Calvary". {| | [[42]] |}


Gules, an equal-armed Cross of Calvary argent. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 171r {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* ". . .a cross of Calvary would have the cross larger than the steps. . ." (December, 2006 LoAR]) |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* A Cross of Calvary is significantly different from a [43]] cross. (October, 2008 LoAR]) |- | =====#Toulousefamilythe Cross of Toulouse===== |||| [[44]] |}


Per pale Or and gules, a Cross of Toulouse counterchanged. BSB Cod.icon. 270, folio 91r {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* "A cross of Toulouse, which is a period charge, is effectively a cross clechy]pometty on the points] and is voided] by definition." (December, 2007 LoAR]) |- |* "[T]he 'voiding]' of the cross of Toulouse is a part of its definition and is not the addition of a tertiary charge." (August, 1995 LoAR]) |- | =====#gringolyfamilythe cross gringoly===== |}


Note: This spelling is given in the cover letter] defining cross families, but all the registered examples are blazoned "cross gringolé" in the[ online O&A].// {| | [[45]] |}


Or, a cross gringoly sable. BSB Cod.icon. 392 d, folio 100r {| | "we would not register a cross/saltire gringolé [[46]]// (with the voiding being gringolé as well)" (December, 2004 LoAR]) |- | =====#pomellyfamilythe cross pomelly / bourdonny===== |- |Note: These are alternate terms for the same sort of cross--"pomelly" after the pomels of swords, "bourdonny" after the heads of//bourdons //(pilgrims' staves). |}


In some instances, the College of Arms has also blazoned such crosses "pommy" and "pometty". {| | [[47]] |}


Gules, a cross pomelly Or, overall an escutcheon sable charged with an eagle argent. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 26v {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* A small cross pometty on a tower may be nothing more than a standard arrow slit, in which case it doesn't count as a tertiary charge but is treated as part of the tower's internal detailing (as would be a window or portal). (January, 2007 LoAR]) Further, "artistic details are allowed to have poor contrast," (November, 2009 LoAR]). |- | =====#Maltesefamilythe Maltese cross===== |||| [[48]] |}


Gules, a Maltese cross argent. detail from a photo] that has been released into the public domain//Note: The pictured cross appears above the entrance to the former church of San Pietro in Consavia], in Asti, Italy. Various portions of the compound were constructed between the 12th and 15th centuries. I'm not sure when the cross was applied, including whether it was done any time before 1600. {| | on charges within the family only: |- |* "Properly drawn, a Maltese cross should have four deeply notched arms, converging to a central point (or very nearly); and each arm should take up an angle as wide as the space between// the arms." ([letter] for the May, 2007 LoAR) "Maltese crosses should also have arms of equal length." (August, 2008 LoAR]) |- |* related to charges outside the family: |- |* A Maltese cross is substantially different from a Latin] cross throughout]([http//heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2006/09/06-09lar.html#368 September, 2006 LoAR]]). |- |* A Maltese cross is significantly different from a cross of four lozenges] (April, 1996 LoAR]). |}


Period Crosses Not Part of Any Conflict-Checking Family

Crosses that don't fall into one of the families must be compared for conflict on an individual basis. This includes a large number of crosses that were used in period heraldry, as well as all other crosses used in S.C.A. heraldry.

type of cross example emblazon rulings and precedents
=====#avellanecross avellane===== [[49]]


cross avellane Volume III of William Berry's 1828 Encyclopædia Heraldica, Plate XXXIII {| | There is a significant difference between a cross avellane and a cross patonce], "since the cross avellane is a period charge, described in Gullim's //A Display of Heraldry//." (September, 2009 LoAR]) |- |A cross avellane is not significantly different from a cross of four ermine spots] (August, 2008 LoAR]). |}


There has been one registration of a cross avellane [[50]]. The emblazon shows a cross avellane in which the cener roundel is not conjoined to the tails serving as the arms of the cross. {| | |- | =====#threecrossbarscross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm===== |||| [[51]] |}


a cross couped of three crossbars, missing the dexter base arm Kazimierz Józef Turowski's 1858 edition of Bartosz Paprocki's 1584 Herby Rycerstwa Polskiego, page 380 {| | "This cross is a period charge, found in a collection of Polish armory, Herby Rycerstwa Polskiego, 1584, [Paprockiego, 1858]." ([1997 LoAR]) |- |A cross couped of three crossbars missing the dexter base arm is significantly different from a cross moline] (May, 2001 LoAR]). |- | =====#crescentycross crescenty===== || [[52]] |}


Or, a cross crescenty sable. BSB Cod.icon. 392 d, folio 149r {| | [[53]] |- |issuant from the top of a cross argent crescenty Or a topknot sable |- |BSB Cod.icon. 307, folio 138 || "A cross crescenty has each arm ending in a crescent with its horns pointing outwards." (January, 2003 LoAR]) |- |"While a cross crescenty is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period cross, it follows the pattern of period crosses, and is, therefore, registerable." (November, 1998 LoAR]) |}


I've included crosses crescenty in the "period crosses" list because of the emblazon and crest at left, which look like crosses crescenty to me and are from period armorials. It has been over a decade since the sovereigns of arms commented that they had no evidence of them; I assume these images simply weren't available to them at the time. {| | |- | =====#doublypommeledcross doubly pommeled===== |||| [[54]] |}


Vert, a cross doubly pommeled throughout gules. BSB Cod.icon. 270, folio165r {| | A cross doubly pommeled elongated] palewise is not significantly different from a cross moline](February, 1997 LoAR]). |- |A cross doubly pommeled is not significantly different from a cross bottony]. (April, 2010 LoAR]) |}


Note: This cross has a lot in common with a cross pomelly]. {| | |- | =====#filletfillet cross===== |||| [[55]] |}


Gules, a cross argent. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 12v {| | This term was used in the very early days of the S.C.A. to describe a skinny ordinary cross. It has since been abandoned. A fillet cross is considered to be a diminutive (June, 1990 LoAR dated July 31st]), and in the S.C.A. "the diminutive names of ordinaries are used only when there is more than one of the ordinary in question (or when the ordinary is otherwise reduced in importance, as in a 'bar enhanced')," (September, 1985]). Now any acceptable ordinary cross, regardless of its thickness, is just blazoned, "a cross". Care must be taken when drawing an ordinary cross to ensure it's not //too// skinny, however, or it will run afoul of the injunction against "thin line heraldry" issued in the [1982 LoAR]. (December, 1987 LoAR]) |- | =====#erminespotscross of four ermine spots===== |}


There was one registration (in 1973) in which such a cross was blazoned as a "cross erminee"; it appears in the O&A as a "cross erminy". {| | [[56]] |}


cross of four ermine spots Volume III of William Berry's 1828 Encyclopædia Heraldica, Plate XXXIII {| | "As a cross of ermine spots is a non-standard cross, it may be too difficult to depict it in an identifiable fashion as a tertiary charge." (July, 2013 LoAR]) |}


"Crosses of ermine spots are drawn with the tops of the ermine spots conjoined in the center, rather than the bases of the ermine spots conjoined in the center.. . .(In many renditions of ermine spots, the three roundels, or voided billet, at the top of the spot represent a stylized clasp, as would have been used to hold an ermine tail or skin to an underlying garment or less expensive fur.)" ([2001 LoAR]) A cross of four ermine spots is not significantly different from a cross avellane] (August, 2008 LoAR]). A cross of four ermine spots is significantly different from a cross fleury], because "Both crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually distinguished from each other." (December, 2002 LoAR]). A cross of four ermine spots is substantially different from a Cross Calatrava] (March, 2011 LoAR]) {| | |- | =====#JerusalemCross of Jerusalem===== |||| [[57]] |}


Gules, a Cross of Jerusalem Or. BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 10r {| | "In the SCA, a Cross of Jerusalem is a cross potent] between four crosses couped]." (May, 1982 LoAR]) "The cross of Jerusalem may be drawn with the plain crosslets inside or outside the cross potent, but they should not touch its arms." (August, 1977 LoAR]) |- |"The Cross of Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of discrete elements in the same way that an ermine spot does." (July, 1996 LoAR]) |- |". . .[T]here is no problem having a cross of Jerusalem on a fieldless badge, even though portions of this defined single charge are not conjoined." (April, 2003 LoAR]) |- |A Cross of Jerusalem cannot be fimbriated]; a cross potent] is too complex to fimbriate, and fimbriating all five constituent crosses would in any event be excessive (December, 1995 LoAR]). |- |The use of a Cross of Jerusalem with a cross crosslet] at its center (instead of a cross potent]) is one step from period practice (May, 2003 LoAR]). |- | =====#keykey cross===== |||| [[58]] |}


Argent, a key cross azure. BSB Cod.icon. 278, folio 16r {| | "A key cross is a period charge found in the arms of Pisa. It is defined as a cross clechy] pommety] at the points//." (January, 2006 LoAR]) |- |A key cross is not simple enough to void] or fimbriate] (November, 1993 LoAR]). However, "A cross of Toulouse], which is a period charge, is effectively a cross clechy] pometty] on the points and is voided by definition." (December, 2007 LoAR]) |- | =====#lozengedcross lozenged===== |||| [59]] |- |Azure, a cross lozenged Or. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 280, folio 137r || Note: This cross has a lot in common with a cross clechy], and with key] crosses and Crosses of Toulouse], which are variants of crosses clechy. |- | =====#glandularcross glandular===== |}


"A cross glandular has three acorns issuant from the end of each arm." (January, 2012 LoAR]) {| |= [[60]] |}


Argent, a cross glandular gules fructed proper.

[Armário 15 da Casa da Coroa], folio 37r {| | "There is substantial difference between a cross glandular and a cross of Saint Julian]." (July, 2012 LoAR]) |- | Norse sun cross || [[61]] |- |Gules, a cross between four Norse sun crosses Or. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 391, folio 26r || [[62]] |- |Gules, on a bend argent three Norse sun crosses sable. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 390, folio 649 || "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." (March, 2001 LoAR]) |- |"The Norse sun cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols cannot be registered as the sole charge." (September, 2000 LoAR]) However, "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." (October, 2007 LoAR]) |}


I've included the Norse sun cross in the "period crosses" list because of the emblazons at left, which include the charge blazoned in the S.C.A. as a "Norse sun cross" and are from period armorials. I assume these emblazons simply hadn't been seen by the sovereigns at arms when they ruled that it's not a period charge. {| | |- |^ || [[63]] |- |Azure, a bend bretessed Or between two Norse sun crosses argent and on a chief Or an eagle sable. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 274, folio 134r || [[64]] |- |Quarterly gules, on a Norse sun cross argent in cross five torteaus, and argent, in saltire two spears gules each flying a pennant per fess argent and gules. |- |BSB Cod.icon. 307, page 101 ||^ |- | =====#pointedcross pointed===== |||| [[65]] |}


Argent, a cross pointed sable. BSB Cod.icon. 333, folio 30r {| | A cross pointed is significantly different from a cross moline] (August, 1990 LoAR]). |- | =====#portatecross portate===== || [[66]] |}


Quarterly gules, a cross portate argent, and gules, a cross argent. BSB Cod.icon. 307, page 115 {| | [[67]] |}


Azure, a cross portate reversed between three mullets of eight points Or and on a chief azure three fleurs-de-lys Or and a label of four points gules. BSB Cod.icon. 274, folio 240r {| | "Whether or not the cross portate is period, it clearly does not take well to having charges placed around it." (October, 1984 LoAR]) |}


Note: This cross has a great deal in common with a straight tau] cross throughout] bendwise, and as the crests accompanying the quartered field presented at left are a straight tau cross and a cross couped], I think it's possible that's how it originated. {| | |- | =====#RussianOrthodoxRussian Orthodox cross===== |}


There has also been one registration in which a cross like this was blazoned a "Greek Orthodox cross". {| | [[68]] || "At this point we are declaring that the orientation of the lowermost cross bar [on a Russian Orthodox cross] is an unblazoned detail worth no difference. In other words, it doesn't matter if it is bendwise or bendwise sinister." (May, 2007 LoAR]) |- |A Russian Orthodox cross is substantially different from a cross of lozenges] (April, 2009 LoAR]). |- |A Russian Orthodox cross is significantly different from a cross Lorraine] (December, 2004 LoAR]). |- | =====#swallowtailcross swallowtailed===== |- |The term "double-fitched" was used to blazon such a cross once early in the Society's history. It was later re-blazoned a "cross swallowtailed". |||| [[69]] |}


Gules, on a cross swallowtailed Or two annulets interlaced argent. BSB Cod.icon. 392 d, folio 166r {| | A cross swallowtailed is significantly different from a cross patonce], a cross fleury] (March, 1993 LoAR]), a cross formy] (July, 1999 LoAR]), and a cross moline] (May, 2010 LoAR]).. |- |"While there are period examples of the term cross double-fitched// or //double-fitchy//, they don't match [what we call 'a cross swallowtailed']." (October, 2007 LoAR]) |- |---- |- |This page was written and is maintained by [Muimnech], who created and owns the copyright to all portions not attributed to others. You may print or electronically copy it for your own use or to pass on to others, provided you do not seek to profit from its distribution. |- |Click to visit Coblaith's homepage] or the index to her heraldry articles]. |- |---- |- |You can see most of the illustrations above in their original contexts by clicking on them or on text in the notes below them. The cited manuscripts are as follows: |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 265: a Flemish chorography made in the Netherlands in 1562, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 267: a book of arms of Roman pontifs and cardinals made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 270: a book of arms of northern Italian cities and Milanese nobility made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 274: a book of Venetian, Mantuan, Bolognese, Anconian, Urbinoan, and Perugian arms made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 278: a book of Luccan, Sienese, Pisan, Pistoian, Volterran, Arezzan, Cortonese, and Sansepolcran arms made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 280: a book of arms of the French knights of the order of St. Michael made in Italy in the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod. icon. 290: a book of arms of the counts, vicounts, etc. of Cataluna, Castille, and Portugal made in Spain in the15th-16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 291: a book of English arms made in England in the middle of the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 307: a collection of arms from various (predominantly German) lands made in Germany around 1600, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 308: an armorial made by Nikolaus Bertschi in Augsburg between 1515 and 1650, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 308 u: the Ortenburg armorial, made in Bavaria between 1466 and 1473 and now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 333: a large armorial containing arms of Holy Roman Emperors, European noble houses, popes, cardinals, bishops, and abbots, up to the time of Emperor Rudolf II and Pope Gregory XIII, made in southern Germany in 1583 and now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 390: an armorial of the Holy Roman Empire made by Stephen Brechtel in Nürnberg between 1554 and 1568, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod.icon. 391: various armorials collected in a single volume in southern Germany (possibly Augsburg) around 1530, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* BSB Cod. icon. 392 d: an armorial made in southern Germany in the first half of the 16th century, now in the collection of the Bavarian State Library |- |* Casa Real, Cartório da Nobreza, liv. 20: an armorial made in Portugal in the early 16th century by António Godinho (Folio 37r is image m0079.) |}


Ordinary

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

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Cross_(Heraldic_Charge)&oldid=6354"