Maintained Charges

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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

---

Definition:

Glossary of Terms: Small objects that are held by an animate charge are said to be maintained, such as a lion rampant maintaining a sword//. Maintained charges are considered too small to count towards difference. //See also Sustained Charges. [[1]]

---

#x--Sources:Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - [[2]] Archive of St. Gabriel reports - [[3]] Laurel Armory Articles - [[4]] Period Armorials

---

SENA Appendix I: Charge Group Theory

... Charges that are held by, suspended from, or are otherwise touching another charge fall into two categories. Those that are large enough to be of equal weight with the charge holding them are called sustained charges and are considered to be part of the same charge group as the charge holding them. Those that are smaller we call maintained charges and treat as artistic details. Maintained charges are described below in more detail... E. Maintained Charges: Charges that are held by, suspended from, or are otherwise touching another charge fall into two categories. Those that are large enough to be of equal weight with the charge holding them are considered to be part of the same charge group (primary, secondary, overall) as the charge holding them. We call these sustained charges. Those that are smaller we treat as artistic details. They are not part of any charge group. They do not contribute to difference for conflict purposes. They are allowed to violate the contrast rules, though they must have some contrast so that they can remain identifiable. Despite that, they contribute to complexity count, because they still add to visual complexity. We call these charges maintained charges.

• In the case of Sable, a dragon maintaining a sword argent, the sword is much smaller than the dragon and does not contribute to difference. In the case of Sable, a dragon sustaining a sword argent, the sword must be of equal visual weight with the dragon. This generally means being at least as long as the dragon is tall. It is considered part of the primary charge group with the dragon. A depiction that is unclear, with a sword that is smaller than the dragon, but still quite large, may be returned for blurring the distinction between the two possible blazons with their different implications for style and conflict.

[See February 2012 Cover Letter in the Precedents, below, for further refinements]. http://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#AppendixI

---

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.

May 2018 CL - Orientation of Maintained and Sustained Charges

In the August 2015 Cover Letter, SENA A5C3 was modified with the following ruling:

Therefore, effective immediately, we are adopting the following definition: a charge, held or conjoined, which is clearly not a co-primary charge is equivalent to the former definition of sustained if it is identifiable, no matter what its size. Sustained charges grant a cadency difference - currently referred to as a "DC". This standard is intended to include charges which are much smaller than the current definition: a charge large enough to grant difference as a tertiary charge will grant one as held/conjoined charge. Held/conjoined charges must have good contrast with their background.

While this ruling resolved the long-disputed and ultimately untenable distinction between maintained and sustained charges, subsequent interpretation of the precedent raised a new issue: If a sustained charge is the equivalent of a secondary or tertiary charge (in that it must be at least as large as a tertiary charge would be), and if both secondary and tertiary charges receive a DC for orientation, then the orientation of sustained charges must be blazonable so that they can be appropriately compared.

Unfortunately, this interpretation had the unforeseen consequence of several returns for armory with held charges blurring the distinction between orientations, despite the charges being held in a natural manner as seen in period heraldry. Emulating period heraldic style is one of the goals of the College of Arms.

Therefore, effective immediately, maintained and sustained secondary charges will no longer receive a DC for orientation, and as such will no longer be returned for blurring the distinction between orientations.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html#4

June 2016 - Position of Held Charges

This month we considered the question of how we count difference for changes to held charges, in the case of Déirdre inghean Eithne (Meridies). The question was raised of whether the position on the field of the held charge could be counted as a DC. In this case, the bird in the protected device was holding the charge in its beak, while in the submission, the bird was holding the charge in its claw. The way in which the bird holds a charge is considered an artistic detail that does not provide a DC. Similarly, the way in which the bird holds the secondary charge dictates its position and thus the location on the field does not provide a DC either. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2016/06/16-06cl.html

August 2015 - Eliminating the unsustainable "maintained/sustained" definitions

On the May 2015 Cover Letter, the College of Arms was asked to discuss a proposal to change our current standards governing sustained and maintained charges. For many years, the determination of whether or not a charge is sustained or maintained has been done on the basis of visual weight. In several aspects, that practice has left both heralds and submitters unsatisfied. A charge large enough to grant difference as a secondary or tertiary charge has been frequently considered to not grant difference if conjoined or held, though no difference is granted for the conjoining itself. One of the arguments in favor of these standards has been that maintained charges are charges which, in period practice, are sometimes omitted from the emblazon. However, the number of period designs which sometimes omit the maintained charges is amazingly small. Commentary has brought no compelling reason to maintain (or sustain) the current standards. Therefore, effective immediately, we are adopting the following definition: a charge, held or conjoined, which is clearly not a co-primary charge is equivalent to the former definition of sustained if it is identifiable, no matter what its size. Sustained charges grant a cadency difference - currently referred to as a "DC". This standard is intended to include charges which are much smaller than the current definition: a charge large enough to grant difference as a tertiary charge will grant one as held/conjoined charge. Held/conjoined charges must have good contrast with their background. All held/conjoined charges count towards the complexity limits - both for type and tincture. This specifically overturns the section of the May 2014 Cover Letter that states "We will not count the type or tincture of maintained charges. ». Because the relative size of the held/conjoined does not affect its role for complexity or conflict checking, there is no need for size-specific terminology. A held or conjoined charge which is not identifiable will render the design unregisterable. A charge may be rendered unidentifiable through the usual methods, including reduction in size, poor contrast, etc... A maintained charge on already registered armory will be considered for conflict purpose only if it fulfills the criteria for identifiability (which implies, at least, good contrast). This does not change how to determine if held or conjoined charges are co-primary charges. We will continue to return items which blur the distinction between co-primary charges and held/conjoined secondary charges. Charges which, in period, have held/conjoined charges which are sometimes there and sometimes not (for example a squirrel holding a nut), must have those charges blazoned if they are to count for difference. Anyone in the SCA who wants a held or conjoined charge which is sometimes there and sometimes not must register both variants of the design independently. We will also consider mundane protected armory under this new rule. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2015/08/15-08cl.html#6

From the Febuary 2012 Cover Letter: From Wreath: Redefining Sustained Charges Da'ud ibn Auda, in September 1994, re-stated a precedent from Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme set in July 1992 in the following manner: > Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. On the September 2011 Cover Letter, the College of Arms was asked to discuss our current standards governing sustained and maintained charges. The original ruling that gave rise to our use of sustained states: > Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference. [Brayden Avenel Durrant, A-Calontir, July 1992 LoAR] However, current practice has expanded the definition of "comparable size" to where we are now comparing the longest dimension of each charge, and if they are equal, declare the two charges to be co-primary. As a similar discussion started on the September 2008 Cover Letter stated, "Current practice has reached the point of reducto ad absurdum: extremely skinny charges, such as a spear, are being granted equivalent weight to a large creature such as a dragon segreant, merely because the long dimension of the two is equivalent. Were the same charges not touching, the spear would unmistakably be a secondary." The terms sustained and maintained were largely co-opted by the Society for use in our blazon. In period blazons, the majority of held charges use some variant of the termholding; while most of the held items do not appear to have been considered significant enough for use as cadency steps, it is possible that some were. As the current distinction between sustained and maintained has become unwieldy, we are hereby returning to focusing on visual weight. This standard does not rely upon rulers or other precise measurements: just as with secondary and primary charges, when the visual weight difference makes the appropriate charge group unclear, the item will be returned for redraw. Most charges held by animate charges are maintained, and therefore will continue to not contribute to difference. Only rarely will a held charge have sufficient visual weight to be considered significant. There are three possible cases:

• Touching charges with the same visual weight will be considered equal charges and part of the same charge group (co-primaries, co-secondaries, etc). Such arrangements will be blazoned with their placement first. For example, in fess an X sustained by a Y.
• Touching charges where the held charge is obviously less than half of the visual weight of the holding charge will be considered maintained charges, and not count for difference. Such arrangements will be blazoned as in recent practice, with the holding charge first and using the term maintaining. For example, a X maintaining a Y.
• Touching charges where the held charge is more than half of the visual weight of the holding charge, yet clearly not equal, may be considered either maintained charges or, rarely, sustained secondary charges. If the holding charge is a primary charge, and the held charge would easily be considered a secondary charge if it were not held by the primary charge, then the held charge will be considered a sustained secondary charge. Such arrangements will be blazoned with the primary charge first. For example, an X sustaining a Y. However, if the holding charge is not a primary charge, the held charge will be considered a maintained charge and not count for difference.

Held charges that blur the distinction between a secondary charge and a primary charge will be registered as a secondary charge until the September 2012 Laurel meetings. After that date, any charges that blur the distinction between a secondary charge and a primary charge, or between a maintained charge and a secondary charge, will be returned for redraw. Since we still desire to distinguish between maintained charges, which do not count for difference, and those charges which do count as either secondary or equal charges, we will continue to use the term maintained for maintained charges, but will allow more variation in blazon terms such as holding instead of sustaining for co-primary charges as long as the blazon remains clear. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/02/12-02cl.html

From the March 2008 LoAR: "The rose is blazoned as *bendwise* because of the orientation of the slip and leaves. These are equivalent to maintained charges and thus neither require good contrast with the field nor contribute to difference." [2008 LoAR]

From the August 2007 LoAR: "It is complex, having a complexity count of eight for three tinctures and five charges (yes, the maintained acorn counts)." [2007 LoAR ]

From the October 1992 LoAR: "The Or <charge> has insufficient contrast against the (partially) Or field. While maintained charges aren't as strictly bound by the Rule of Contrast as other charges, they still can't share a tincture with the field (v. Phillippa MacCallum, Sept 88). [See also Luke of Caerleon, November 1992 LoAR, pg. 16 and Eleri Langdoun, March 1993 LoAR, pg. 23]" [1992 LoAR]

Collected Precedents:

• 2nd Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (April 2011 - August 2011) - Collected Armory Precedents
• 1st Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
• The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - CHARGE -- Maintained and Sustained
• The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - Collected Armory Precedents
• 1st Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - Collected Armory Precedents
• The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - Collected Armory Precedents
• The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - Single HTML Document
• 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) - Collected precedents
• 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) - Collected Precedents
• The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - Single HTML Document
• The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - Collected Precedents
• The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - Collected Precedents
• The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - Collected Precedents