[antir-heralds] Question about wolves on devices

[Britt]

> I had someone ask me if it was possible to use 2
> celtic wolves that are biting eachothers tails.  They
> are in a circular fashion and difficult to describe.
> Are Celtic wolves passable?  If not, are there any
> suggestions I can make?  I did suggest having the 2
> wolves seperated by fess or pale, running with heads
> opposite so the heads lined up with the tails.  I'm
> sorry I don't have any pictures to use as
> examples....Thank you to anyone who responds.

Celtic-style animals tend to get returned because they're not
reproducable from blazon.

That said, wolves in annulo biting each other's tail should be a
registerable motif, provided the animals are drawn recognizably as
wolves.  The only time you can have an inverted quadruped is if it's
part of a group of beasts in annulo, so remember that.

Here are some Laurel precedents that are relevant from
http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
While the wolf was drawn in a style based on period artwork (the Book
of Kells), it was not drawn in any style consistent with period
heraldry, nor even with any artwork used at the same time as period
heraldry. The College of Arms has declined to register Celtic knotwork
art, including beasts in that style, for several years. [Conall in
fáelchú mac Duibdarach, 06/01, R-Meridies]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Azure, in annulo three cats couchant, each biting the tail of the
next argent] This conflicts with [Azure, a lion dormant argent].
There's a single CD, for adding the other two cats; we grant no
difference between lions and cats, or between couchant and dormant.

This submission was an appeal of a return by the Midrealm College of
Heralds, for the above conflict. The submitter argues that there
should be a CD for posture as well as number, since the two added cats
are not in their "default" posture --- by which is meant, we assume,
not in the same posture as the original cat. I agree with Lord
Dragon's analysis: the client evidently feels that the change from the
[conflicting] device to her submission is a two-step process (first we
add two cats, then we change their posture). This is not the case.
It's a single-step process: we've added two charges. They could have
been two cats couchant [the whole in annulo] argent, or two cats
rampant addorsed argent, or two bezants, or a widget ermine and a
wadget checky Or and gules. The amount of difference gained remains
the same: a single CD, for the added charges.

This policy has been in place since at least Master Wilhelm's tenure;
it was enunciated by Master Baldwin, in his LoARs of 25 Aug 85, p.14,
and 15 Sept 85, p.3; Mistress Alisoun and Master Da'ud both followed
it. It is logically consistent with Laurel interpretations of the
Rules to date. The policy has one strong advantage to commend it: it
doesn't encourage our clients, through extra heraldic difference, to
add charges at variance (by posture, type, tincture, whatever) from
those of the base coat. Submissions get no more difference for such
designs than for heraldically desirable designs, with all the charges
identical. We may not be able to ban submissions with charges going
every which way, but we certainly needn't reward them with extra CDs
for the "every which way" part.

This is a valid conflict .. .It must be returned. The submitter might
consider changing the tincture of the field. (Elspet NicDhubhghlaise
bean Iain MhicThomaidh, July, 1993, pg. 15)
----------------------------------------------------------------
[three otters statant in annulo vs six mice couchant in annulo and
three cats couchant in annulo, each biting the tail of the cat
previous] [vs the mice] No one...where the emblazons were compared
could see granting another for either type or posture of the animals.
[vs the cats] A visual comparison demonstrated insufficient difference
in type or posture to overcome the vast visual similarities.  (Miriam
Engelke, 1/95 p. 13)
----------------------------------------------------------------
[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined at
the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined in
annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two
animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted.
By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part
of an arrangement in annulo. [Eiríkr Þorvaldson, 10/00, R-Artemisia]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo] These birds are not conjoined
in annulo, they are connected by the legs. As such, this depiction is
not blazonable. We would need evidence that this motif is a reasonable
heraldic depiction as well as a valid blazon for it in order to
register it. [Bran Trefonin, 11/00, R-Atlantia]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to sinister
argent] These stags were originally blazoned as courant in annulo
widdershins, legs outward, argent. However, these are not clearly in
annulo as they are not embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture
may not be possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order
to truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with
extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period style.
In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their legs inwards
and their identifiability and period style are hampered by this
posture.

We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not really, in annulo:

    [A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted conjoined
at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally blazoned as conjoined
in annulo. However, the beasts were not drawn in annulo, where the two
animals are embowed, but were drawn as courant and courant inverted.
By precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part
of an arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)

This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two stags combattant argent.
There is one CD for the difference in arrangement between in fess (as
with two animals combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for
changing the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to
sinister and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín
Þorfinssdóttir, 02/02, R-Atenveldt]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The triangle inverted voided ployÃ(c) fleury at the points azure may
have been considered a single charge in German armory. However, this
single charge is not heraldically distinct from three fleurs-de-lys
conjoined in pall azure. We do not give difference between three
charges and three conjoined charges when both groups of charges are in
in the same orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the
following precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo:
"There is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in
annulo which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).

As a result, this only has one CD from a badge of Atenveldt
(registered in December 2002), Or, three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases
to center azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness but nothing for
conjoining the fleurs-de-lys. [Sonnet Manon, 08/03, R-An Tir]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[three dragons each involved in annulo inverted] Each of these dragons
is inverted: on its back with its paws in the air. "The College has
judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable style, barring
documentation of this practice in period heraldry" (LoAR of September
1993, p. 21). The College has not yet found, or been presented with,
documentation for animals in this involved in annulo inverted posture.
The device must therefore be returned.

We note that the ruling in the October 2000 LoAR stating, "By
precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are part of
an arrangement in annulo", does apply to the armorial design found in
this submission. This submission consists of three dragons in an
arrangement two and one, not an arrangement in annulo. The precedent
refers to an arrangement in annulo without specifying the posture of
the animals in that arrangement. For example, Three dragons courant in
annulo would be in an arrangement where the three courant dragons
would be running in a circle, feet towards the center of the shield.
As a result, the bottommost dragon in the group must perforce be
inverted. The precedent makes clear that such an arrangement in annulo
is acceptable, even though one of the animals in such an arrangement
is inverted. [Avice Greylyng, 11/03, R-East]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
... charges in annulo are clockwise by default... [Isabelle
d'Avallon� 02/02, A-Atenveldt]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Whoo, lots of precedents.  But they tell us plenty.
1. Creatures in annulo are legal.
2. The only way a critter can be inverted (unless it's a bat) is if it
is part of an arrangement in annulo.
3. Creatures in annulo must be curved to make a rounded sort of shape.
4. Creatures in annulo biting one another's tails have been registered
in the past and are apparently stylistically legal.
5. The Celtic art style is not identifiable for registration.

Now, Gwenhwyfar, remind your client that the SCA registers heraldry.
Which means submissions must be in heraldic style.  If s/he wants the
motif of Celtic wolves, s/he is welcome to display it at will, and to
display his/her registered heraldry in a Celtic style after it's
registered.  The wolves must be unmistakably wolves fo9r submission
purposes but personal expression (so long as the design isn't altered
radically enough to change the base blazon - like adding extra charges
or turning the canines feline) is always an option.  You make
concessions for submission but with all the pre-heraldic personas out
there wanting Viking and Celtic motifs, we're not going to say a thing
if they change their display to match their persona in practice.

The wolves can be done.  And thank you for asking about a design
element early on in order to assure suitability of the completed
design.  Style is more important than conflict and you are taking
exactly the right steps in the right order to assure that your clients
get what they want.

- Teceangl