[tirrigh-heralds] Received AoA, now I need CoA

[Basil]

As a follow-up:

On 5/28/2013 11:14 PM, Judy Harcus wrote:
>
> 4) I believe there is a restriction on the use of a skull and
> crossbones but I would have to check that.

The only precedent I can find is:
"[Quarterly gules and sable, in pale a jawless skull and a pair of
cutlasses in saltire argent.] This violates RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive
Modernity, and specifically VIII.4.b, Modern Insignia. VIII.4.b states
'Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or common designs may
not be registered.' VIII.4 states that '"modern" is defined as
anything outside the period of the Society.' It was the overwhelming
opinion of the College that this motif is too reminiscent of pirate
designs featuring a skull above crossed items (typically bones or
cutlasses) that go back only to the early 18th century. In particular
(as noted by Palmer), John 'Calico Jack' Rackham (hanged for a pirate
in 1720) was reported to fly Sable, in pale a skull and a pair of
cutlasses in saltire argent. Laurel precedent has held that 'A name
that, by its very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a
name we should register.' (Porsche Audi, August 1992, p.28) The same
applies to armory, and designs such as this almost inevitably generate
thoughts of post-period pirates, which likewise 'destroy any medieval
ambience'. (We do not dispute the presence in period of those who
practiced piracy or something closely akin to it. That is not the
point.) [Alastair Corran, LoAR 06/2004, East-R]"

Thus, while only skull & cutlasses was ruled on, skull & bones is 
clearly referenced. I, too, believe a skull and bones would not be 
registered.


~~Basil Dragonstrike

Erō mītis cum sim mortuus.

And it's only the giving that makes you, what you are. -- J. Tull

Disobedience is Mandatory!