Please find herein the results of the decision meeting for the August ILoI held on October 25, 2009.
Unto the Ansteorran College of Heralds does Lady Katrine la Esclopiera, sends Greetings.
I would like to thank all you who commented this month. The new online commentary system for the Ansteorra College of Heralds has, I believe, been a great success. If you are interested in participating all you need to do is register at this web site: http://hcs.randomcasts.com/. HCS is a Ruby on Rails application written and maintained by Lord Reis ap Tuder of Mooneschadowe
You can still send commentary directly to me at [email protected] .
For information on commentary submission formats or to receive a copy of the collated commentary, you can contact me at:
Irena Fridenberg 114 West Husband Court Stillwater OK 74075 405-788-0042 (before 9:30 pm please) [email protected]
Commenters for this issue:
Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) Magnus Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) Tostig Logiosophia Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) Emma de Fetherstan (Star) Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) Eirik Halfdanarson Ioannes Dalassenos Estrill Swet (Asterisk) Isabel de Barton
1. Ælfwyn Webbestre. (Elfsea, Barony of) New Badge. Argent, a weaving tablet purpure Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/07/29 18:53:11: Hmm. Can we say shades of Czina Angielczyka, (Fieldless) A weaver's tablet purpure, charged with a half-moon knife argent. , from the November 2008 ILoI?
Blazon fu: Should be Argent, a square weaver's tablet purpure.
To date we do not know the fate of Czina's badge as it has yet to be published, though it should be before the decision meeting. Assuming it passed we get 1 CD for the field and 1 CD for removing the half-moon knife. (RfS X.4.i) Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/21 23:46:20: Last edited on 2009/08/29 17:45:17 Czina's badge will come out in the next LoAR (May) to be released. Hopefully, that will rule on any issues with the weaver's tablet but I don't think this submission has any problems. No conflicts were found through current submissions.
Czina's badge was registered without comment so that should clear up issues with the weaver's tablet.
Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 14:37:31: I didn't find any conflicts. I have a minor concern about identifiability, but that's mainly because I suspect non-heralds aren't likely to realize that a die is actually drawn in 3-D in heraldry. I could see someone looking at this and guessing it's a purple die showing the number four. College Action: Badge: Reblazoned as “Argent, a square weaver's tablet purpure.” and forwarded to Laurel.
2. Æsileif Geirfinnsdóttir. (Elfsea, Barony of) New Name and Device. Argent, on a dragon sergeant purpure a rose argent. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:35:19: As I would normally expect from the blazon to see the rose more centrally located on the dragon's torso and wing, should we reblazon this as, "Argent, a dragon segreant purpure charged on the shoulder with a rose argent"? Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/29 23:38:08: Last edited on 2009/08/01 14:16:53 [Device] Concur with al-Jamal's reblazon. Have seen "on the shoulder" specified several time in Foster, especially with lions.
This seems at least 2 CD clear versus "Argent, a unicorn-headed dragon, with lion's forepaws, segreant purpure, armed and orbed Or, tail to base entwined about a garb sable." (Megwyn of Glendwry, Device, July 1983, re-registered 8505C). Even if there's no CD between the two monsters, removal of the garb sable should provide the 2nd CD. Also seems X2 clear versus "Argent, on a cross fleury purpure, a rose argent." (Rayne Louveciennes, Device, April 1988) etc.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 06:14:40:
If the submitter would like us to make giving her a name that sounds the way she thinks the submitted name does a priority, she should've told us what she thinks it sounds like. Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 14:29:06: I found no conflicts. I also concur with reblazoning to indicate the dragon is charged on the shoulder with the rose. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/22 13:57:27: Last edited on 2009/08/22 14:30:49 [Name] No conflicts found through current submissions. [Device] Blazon as: "Argent, a dragon purpure charged on the shoulder with a rose argent." Sadly, this device conflicts with both:
Megwyn of Glendwry July of 1983 (via Caid): "Argent, a unicorn-headed dragon, with lion's forepaws, segreant purpure, armed and orbed Or, tail to base entwined about a garb sable."
AND
Giesele Hildegaard of the Mystic Dragon April of 1984 (via Caid): "Argent, a lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon erect purpure."
[September 2003 LoAR, R-Meridies] "Conn Draca. Device. Argent, a dragon and a chief embattled purpure. Conflict with Megwyn of Glendwry, Argent, a unicorn-headed dragon, with lion's forepaws, segreant purpure, armed and orbed Or, tail to base entwined about a garb sable. There is one CD for adding the chief. Prior precedent notes that there isn't difference between a dragon and a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws: "[A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws] The visual similarities of the dragon and [the other] monster (changes to head and forepaws only) are simply too great [for there to be a CVD]" (LoAR January 1991 p.24). This also conflicts with a badge of Giesele Hildegaard of the Mystic Dragon, Argent, a lion-tailed, fire- breathing sea dragon erect purpure. There is one CD for adding the chief. On visual inspection, the lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon is indistinguishable from a wyvern, when one considers the various ways in which wyverns were drawn in period. Because the lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon cannot be distinguished from a wyvern in any meaningful fashion, and dragons are not given difference from wyverns, the dragon in this submission obtains no difference from this monster." Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/23 17:11:22: [Device] Good Precedent find, Magnus. Versus Megwyn I had a 2nd CD for removal of the garb -- visualizing it as a maintained secondary charge. Versus House Mystic Dragon i had a 2nd CD for change of type from dragon to sea-dragon -- which are listed as separate categories of Monsters in the Index to the SCA Ordinary and Armorial.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 21:44:42: If the precedent was an old one I would say send it to Laurel but there isn't much chance a 2003 ruling on a visual conflict will get reversed.
College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel.
Device: Returned for conflict with [Megwyn of Glendwry July of 1983 (via Caid): "Argent, a unicorn- headed dragon, with lion's forepaws, segreant purpure, armed and orbed Or, tail to base entwined about a garb sable."] and [Giesele Hildegaard of the Mystic Dragon April of 1984 (via Caid): "Argent, a lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon erect purpure."].
Versus Megwyn, there is not a CD between A dragon vs. a unicorn-headed dragon with lion's forepaws. Versus Giesele it was previously ruled that a lion-tailed, fire-breathing sea dragon is indistinguishable from a wyvern which is not granted a CD against a dragon.
3. Ana Maria de Cerdanya. (Northkeep, Barony of) New Badge. (Fieldless) On a cross of Cerdaña argent a tortoise vert Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:38:32: "Some commenters asked whether the cross of Cerdaña should continue to be allowed in SCA armory, because it is an SCA-invented charge without a strong pattern of SCA use. The cross of Cerdaña is listed in the Pictorial Dictionary as an "SCA invention; it's essentially a square set on one corner, with a semi-circular notch on each side." This description makes the cross sound much less period than it appears. The cross of Cerdaña is a minor artistic variant of a cross clechy, which is a standard period cross. We therefore see no reason to disallow the continued registration of this type of cross." (LoAR July 2002, p. 1) Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/29 23:53:13: [Administrative] Can a charge be drawn throughout on a fieldless badge?
[Badge] Seems at least 2 CD clear versus "Counter-ermine, on a cross moline argent a wolf's head erased vert." (Ranulf of Wolfshaven, Device, July 1991). Even if the cross isn't simple enough to be voided to get a CD for change of tertiary type via X4j(ii), this cross seems a CD different from a cross moline. Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 14:46:18: I would say no, a charge cannot be drawn throughout on a fieldless badge. While the points of the cross touch the badge limit lines, I wouldn't describe it as throughout since the cross doesn't use an edge of the badge box as a defining line of the cross.
Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/08/05 17:17:31: It can certainly be _drawn_ to touch the sides of the space allotted for the emblazon on the forms; you cannot have a "throughout" charge on a fieldless badge because since there is no field, there is no edge to the field.
Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 14:47:16: I find no conflicts. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/22 14:38:08: [Badge] Ana María de Cerdanya is the actual registered name. If you look up the spelling used with this submission you will find it in Ansteorran Index but not in the SCA Armorial. The accent in María causes much grief if left out. College Action: Badge: The name was corrected on the forms to the registered version (Ana María de Cerdanya) and the badge was forwarded to Laurel.
4. Angelique LeRoux. (Elfsea, Barony of) New Name and Device. Gules, a hand issuant from a wing maintaining a sword argent and in base two annulets interlaced Or. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:42:54: We might wish to modify the blazon to make the "sword" a "scimitar", so an artist working solely from the blazon won't give her a different kind of sword. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/29 23:55:19: Last edited on 2009/07/29 23:55:53 [Device] No conflicts observed. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 06:58:45: The submitter has asked us to make keeping her name in her desired language or reflective of her desired culture a priority, but she hasn't told us what language or culture she desires. Since Jewish names often differ from the names of non-Jews living in the same area, it would've been nice to know whether it's more important to her to have a Jewish name or a French one.
According to Academy of Saint Gabriel Report 2145 (http://www.s-gabriel.org/2145 ), the name rendered as "Angelique" in the cited article appears in the period record with the spelling "aleph-nun- gimel-lamedh-yodh-yodh-koph-aleph". The report also says, "We don't know whether the Hebrew spelling represents the spoken name or some conventional documentary form, so we cannot say just what name was intended or how it was pronounced. Because the Jewish naming pool differed from the non-Jewish names found at the same time, it is possible that the underlying vernacular name would not be suitable for a non-Jewish persona in any case."
Mari Elspeth nic Bryan's "Names Found in Ambleny Registers 1578-1616" ( http://www.s- gabriel.org/names/mari/Ambleny/FemGivenNames.shtml ) references the baptisms in 1594 and 1599, respectively, of two girls named "Angélique" (and three more in the first 20 years of the 17th century). The introduction to the article indicates the author thinks the spellings of the included names are probably not standardized, "with the possible exception of accents".
I don't have Dauzat. . .does it really support the proffered CamelCase version of "Leroux" as a period form? If so, from when, exactly, are the dated examples drawn?
Cateline de la Mor's "Sixteenth Century Norman Names" ( http://www.s- gabriel.org/names/cateline/norman16.html ) lists "Le Roux" as a surname. Aryanhwy merch Catmael's "French Surnames from Paris, 1421, 1423 & 1438" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/french/paris1423surnames.html) does likewise, citing 4 instances in a tax roll from 1421. Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/08/17 15:30:16: Well I do have a copy of Dauzat and I can say that I can not find a specifically dated example. That is one of the issues I have with Dauzat, lack of dates. Another being it is in French and I can't really read it well. :-D
The entry is under Roux. It does show Leroux and state that there is a variant Rous. Rous shows an "anc. forme" which I am guessing is what he calls the ancient form to be de Roux.
In the entry it shows "Leroux+ (Nord-Ouest)"
The + should indicate "les noms de famille répandus" or the names of common family. and Nord-Ouest is north-west.
So we have a common name from the North-West area of France, but nothing indicating a time period for the use of the name under that formation.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/17 18:56:55: You say you found "Leroux" (which isn't surprising), but don't mention the CamelCase variant the client actually submitted, "LeRoux". She offered Dauzat as her source for that. Is it in there?
Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/08/17 19:45:05: Nope. I provided what I found. I would be more than happy to scan the pages in question and send them to you for verification if you would like.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/17 20:01:03: That's O.K. I believe you. I just wanted to make sure before I said, "The submitter has offered no documentation for the rather idiosyncratic spelling she's offered for the byname."
I'm not sure whether turning one word into two by adding a space is a major or a minor change, so the documentation for "Le Roux" I cited above may or may not be of help. (Of course, it's possible that she actually put a space between the "e" and the "R" on the form, and the version appearing here is a typo. I assume the folks in the decision meeting will have access to the original so they can double-check.)
Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/31 17:14:20: If I recall correctly, and I may certainly not be, the submitter came to me with some variant of "Angeline" (which we couldn't find), but liked "Angelique". Unfortunately I don't recall if she originally wanted "Leroux" or "LeRoux", but I know that the form was meant to be filled out as "Le Roux", space intact. Blame lousy handwriting there.
Comment by Coblaith
Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/09/02 10:25:21: As it happens, while looking for something unrelated earlier tonight I stumbled across "Angelline", dated to 1528, in Talan Gwynek's "Late Period Feminine Names from the South of France" (http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/ laurel/names/latefrenchfem.html ). Not useful for this submitter, since she's already found something else she likes (and it's in a different language than her byname), but perhaps worth remembering next time someone's asking for it. It seems to be one of those names that lots of people like.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/22 21:21:24: Last edited on 2009/08/24 11:21:37 [Name] Angelique - fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-929045-8.pdf Blood and Violence in Early Modern France by Stuart Carroll page 45-46 Female religious rarely appear in the records but the unusual case of Angélique d’Estrées, abbess of Maubuisson, suggests that they were not all above violence. As one might expect from the sister of the king’s mistress, her rule at Maubuisson, where she was appointed in 1593, was lax—a retreat for members of the court whose purposes had ittle to do with spiritual renewal. Angélique is purported to have been even less chaste than her sister and proud of her twelve bastard children.84 In 1611 she importuned a number of her kinsmen to give the procurator of the bailli of Amiens an exemplary beating. Her brother-in-law, the comte de Sanzay, was a little overzealous and cut off the ear of the procurator’s son.85
One of the more surprising anecdotes of the Counter-Reformation derives from the fact that Mère Angélique Arnauld, perhaps the most celebrated French female religious of the seventeenth century, had begun her ovitiate at Maubuisson. It was the austerely pious Arnauld who was summoned to return to Maubuisson in 1618 to repeat the reforms she had carried out at Port-Royal.86 Events at Maubuisson were an echo of the struggles over benefices in the past. Estrées had to be forcibly dragged from her convent by soldiers. In February the following year she escaped from captivity and on 10 September rode with Sanzay to Maubuisson to retake possession by force. When Mère Angélique refused to leave Estrées tore off her veil and, according to Racine, was escorted from the premises with a gun to her head. However, the struggle was unequal. The Arnauld clan was among the most significant of Parisian legal families and the next day they obtained an order of the Parlement of Paris for Estrées’s rearrest, who fled before she could be detained.
84 L. Cognet, La Réforme de Port-Royal, 1591–1618 (Paris: Sulliver, 1950), 23.
85 AN X2b 1181, 21 Mar. 1612; 1182 14 Mar. and 30 Apr. 1611.
86 L. Cognet, La Mère Angélique et Saint François de Sales, 1618–1626 (Paris: Sulliver, 1951), 15–21, 83–98.
LeRoux - Names Found in Commercial Documents from Bordeaux, 1470-1520 by Aryanhwy merch Catmael www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/french/bordeaux.html Yvon Leroux
This was cited as the inherited surname form. That should work with changing the capital R.
[December 2003 LoAR, R-Artemisia] "Kinga la Roux. Regarding the submitted byname, the form la Roux is not grammatically correct. Colm Dubh's article "An Index to the Given Names in the 1292 Census of Paris" (http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/paris.html) lists the masculine byname form le Rous (Lyon le Rous) and the feminine byname form la rousse (Aalis la rousse), both meaning 'the red'. Aryanhwy merch Catmael's article "Names Found in Commercial Documents from Bordeaux, 1470-1520" (http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~sfriedemann/names/bordeaux.htm) shows an inherited surname form: Leroux. Kingdom provided information from consultation with the submitter: [The] submitter will accept no changes to the given name, and for the byname will only accept de la Roux or la Roux or la Rous. No evidence was found to support de 'of' used with any form of a byname la Rousse 'the red'. The byname forms la Roux and la Rous combine the feminine la with Roux and Rous, both of which are masculine. As none of these byname forms are grammatically correct, they are not registerable."
[Device] Blazon as: "Gules, a wing terminating in a hand maintaining a scimitar palewise argent and in base two annulets interlaced in fess Or." Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/09/07 22:35:22: [Device] A sinister wing terminating ...
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:42:39: [Name] No conflicts found. College Action: Name: Taking into account Emma’s commentary that indicated the form was supposed to be filled out as “Le Roux” instead of “LeRoux”, the form was changed and the name sent to Laurel as “Angelique Le Roux” Device: Reblazoned as “Gules, a hand issuant from a wing maintaining a scimitar argent and in base two annulets interlaced Or.” and forwarded to Laurel.
5. Anna Klähn. (Seawinds, Shire of) New Name. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 14:05:33: Last edited on 2009/08/24 20:29:09
[Name] Klähn is undated in Bahlow. I couldn't find it in Brechenmacher or Socin. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:44:20: [Name] We didn’t find the surname in Brechenmacher either. Bahlow does not say it’s a patronymic, but an epithet probably meaning “clubfoot”. College Action: Name: Unfortunately since no one was able to find a dated example of the surname, this is beign returned for lack of documentation.
6. Antonia Visconti. (Loch Ruadh, Shire of) New Name. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/07/31 00:21:36: The article cited for "Visconti" describes it as a "descriptive from visconte 'viscount'," and adds,"Our example, Gian Galeazzo Visconti, was Duke of Milan and Count of Pavia."
The URL the submitter gave leads not to the table of surnames in the article proper (which is at http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/arval/venice14/venice14sur.html ), but to a page of notes, where the author has written:
Gian Galeazzo Visconti was the son of Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan. The second part of his name was clearly intended as a patronymic reference, but it is unclear whether it was treated as part of his given name, as a second given name, or as part of his surname. It isn't even clear whether these distinctions are all meaningful!
As you have doubtless noticed, this simply indicates that "Galeazzo" is a patronymic of some sort; it says nothing at all about "Visconti".
I think we have to return this one for presumption, unless the submitter is a viscountess in the Society or we can find evidence that "Visconti" was used in period by people who weren't entitled to the title. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/01 14:46:34: Last edited on 2009/08/01 14:47:32 Fortunately for the submitor, there is a supported Precedent alowing the use of 'Visconti' as a surname:
"Cristoforo Donatello dei Visconti. Name. "In the cover letter of April 1994, the byname Visconti was ruled registerable as part of a name that did not make a territorial claim:
"While both surnames Marchesi and Visconti are derived, in a more or less roundabout fashion, from the Italian equivalents of Marquess and Viscount, they were also clearly documented as surnames used by non-nobles. As a consequence, the applicable part of RfS VI.1. would be "Names documented to have been used in period may be used, even if they were derived from titles, provided there is no suggestion of territorial claim or explicit assertion of rank. For example, `Regina the Laundress' is acceptable but `Regina of Germany' is not." In the cases here, both names have been documented to have been used in
period, and neither is used in such a way as to suggest either a territorial claim or an assertion of rank. That being so, both names have been registered." [LoAR Feb 2005]
The surname is used in the submitted naming pattern in 5 of the 7 previous registrations: Ginevra Visconti - This name was registered in August of 2001 (via Trimaris). Lucia Visconti - This name was registered in April of 1994 (via the Middle). Olivia Visconti - This name was registered in October of 1994 (via An Tir). Seraphina Visconti - This name was registered in February of 2001 (via the Outlands). Severin Visconti - This name was registered in February of 1998 (via Trimaris).
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 15:53:41: The complete citation for the ruling is [February 2005 LoAR A-East] Cristoforo Donatello dei Visconti. Name. That is the most recent ruling on the issue.
Never recommend the return of an item unless you have researched it completely. The rules on presumption have almost as many amendments as the Texas constitution.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/23 19:18:28: The point is well taken, though I wasn't so much recommending a return as observing the submission did not include the documentation that would be required to avert one.
That seems to be the general trend, lately. . .commenting heralds spend more time researching names than evaluating research summaries.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/23 21:28:52: The trend hasn't changed. Those who submit, even local pursuivants, generally have far less experience than commenters. Like judges at A&S Competitions, the most valued are those who can teach. Wish I could comment effectively in half the areas Magnus can.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 21:53:23: I only want people to have a solid reason to give to the submitter before they hit the big red return button.
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:44:52: [Name] No conflicts found. College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel
7. Bjarki Jóhansson. (Steppes, Barony of) New Name and Device. Argent, an armadillo passant azure. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:44:01: That the 'dillo has one front foot slightly raised really doesn't make it "passant". I'd reblazon it as "statant" to more accurately reproduce the emblazon from the blazon. Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 14:51:50:
I concur. Also, I think if the armadillo were drawn with it's front foreground foot positioned on a horizontal line with it's back foreground foot (it's a bit askew), the front background foot would look even less raised.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/01 15:12:20: Last edited on 2009/08/01 15:13:44 [Device] Note the following Precedent: "Drogo Rabenwald. Device. Per bend sinister azure and sable, an armadillo rampant argent. "The armadillo is a New World animal. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the word "armadillo", referring to this animal, to 1577 and 1594. Armadillos are also found in several regions occupied by the Spanish long before the end of period. As armadillos were known to Western Europeans in period they may be registered, albeit as a step from period style (a "weirdness"). Per the LoAR of August 1999, "New World flora and fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable." Armory with a single step from period style may be registered, and there are no other steps from period style in this device." [LoAR, January 2004]
Since an armadillo (grouped with an anteater in the O&A) is a SFPP, I don't believe X2 applies in conflict checking. However, I observed no conflicts versus the blazon pattern "Argent, a [BEAST] statant/passant azure." Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/19 20:21:51: Last edited on 2009/08/19 20:25:22 I don't know whether it would have an effect on the "step from period practice" ruling, but the submitter, at least, might be interested to know I found a period depiction of an armadillo, from an appendix to the second volume of Conrad Gesner’s _Historiae Animalium_, which was published in 1554 by Christoph Froschauer (who was based in Zürich).
The full page and bibliographic information are available on the National Library of Medicine site at http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/Gesnergallery.htm .
1. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/08/20 11:10:34: Now THAT armadillo is identifiably passant!
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 01:28:57: [Device] Compare with Banbnat MacDermot September of 2002 (via Calontir): (Fieldless) "A hedgehog statant azure." There is a CD for fieldless but is there a CD between a hedgehog vs. an armadillo? The hedgehog is a period charge but an armadillo isn't.
[May 1989 LoAR, R-Atlantia] "Caitlin Diolun of Armagh. Badge for House Diolun. Vert, an armadillo statant Or. After considering the comments of those who saw in this a conflict with the badge of Xena Baxter Wynthrope ("Vert, a hedgehog statant Or."), we have come to the reluctant conclusion that the armadillo is not a full major point of difference from the hedgehog as it is usually depicted in armoury. The usual distinguishing feature of the hedgehog is its spines and this beast is smooth, but otherwise their profiles are extremely close."
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/23 18:19:43: Last edited on 2009/08/23 18:20:42 [Device] I found no precedent other than the one cited by Magnus regarding difference of type between Anteater and Hedgehog. However, since 'Anteater' (including Armadillo) and 'Hedgehog' (including Urchin) are separate categories of Beasts in the Index to the SCA Ordinary, I would suggest we ask the CoA review the 1989 Precedent.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 18:28:22: There is a reasonable chance Laurel will overturn a 20 year old precedent on a difference like this. The fact that the two beasts are in different categories in the Ordinary does not help. Roses and cinquefoils were in separate sections for years and they conflict. Lots of birds that are Substantially Different from each other are in the same category. As for the problems it will encounter:
- This armadillo is drawn more like the Pic Dic hedgehog than the period image shown in commentary.
- The hedgehog is a period charge from 1275. The armadillo isn't known from period heraldry. It falls under the discouraged practice of New World fauna.
So this is a purely visual compare between a hedgehog azure and our blue armadillo.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 20:47:59: [Name] Jóhann is on page 12 as a male given name and indicates the name is of Christian origin. The - n changes to -s and forms the patronymic Jóhansson. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:45:32: [Name] No conflicts found. College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel. Device: Returned for conflict with [Banbnat MacDermot September of 2002 (via Calontir): (Fieldless) "A hedgehog statant azure."]. Current precedent, [May 1989 LoAR, R-Atlantia] "Caitlin Diolun of Armagh, states that an armadillo is not granted a CD from a hedgehog.
It is possible that a case might be made to challenge the existing precedent, I do not feel the current submission is strong enough to do so. It is not really one specific reason, but rather multuiple together that leads to this.
1. The drawing is dis-similar enough from the image provided by Orbis for me to feel comfortable sending up this emblazon in such a challenge. 2. There was no evidence presented documenting the use of an armadillo as a charge in period armory. 3. While it was correctly stated that this depiction is not truly passant, it is unclear if it is truly statant either.
8. Caitlin nan Cnoc Airgead. (Gate’s Edge, Shire of) New Badge. (Fieldless) A triskelion of horse’s legs sable.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/01 15:37:19: Consider versus "(Fieldless) A triskele sable." (Kingdom of Trimaris, Badge, Sep 1995). Although there is a CD between "a triskele" and "a tiskelion of", the hooves and thighs may make this submission a visual conflict.
"Arion the Wanderer. Device (see PENDS for badge). Azure, a triskelion of dolphins argent. "... This also conflicts with the badge for Order of the Triskele of Trimaris, Azure, a triskele argent. There is a significant difference, or CD, between a triskele and a triskelion of dolphins but not a substantial (X.2) difference...." [LoAR, February 2007] Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 17:26:54: Last edited on 2009/08/25 15:10:15 [Badge] Caitlin nan Cnoc Airgead - This name was registered in March of 1990 (via Ansteorra). Consider Thorin Njalsson May of 1984 (via An Tir): (Fieldless) "Three lion's forelegs embowed conjoined in triskelion sable, each maintaining a sword proper." The swords give nothing. The second CD has to come from a horse's leg vs a lion's leg. Only a few rulings give any guidance on this and it isn't enough to call a definite conflict. I remember that Kingdom of Trimaris and Alden had their troubles with triskelions. With this one, only your Laurel knows for sure.
[October 1994 LoAR, R-Calontir] "Fearghus O'Shannon. Device. Per chevron azure and barry wavy argent and vert, two tiger's jambes in chevron couped argent, marked sable. Conflict with Stanton (Papworth, p. 963), Sable, two lion's gambs in chevron argent. There is one CD for the field, but the sable markings on the jambes here are insufficient for another."
[June 1993 LoAR, A-Outlands] "Caomh Beathan Crubach. Name correction (from Caomn Beathan Crubach) and device. Gules, a bear's jambe fesswise erased Or sustaining a sword fracted inverted argent. I would grant Substantial Difference between a human arm and a beast's jambe. Rule X.2 thus brings this clear of such armories as Vireau (Gules, a human arm issuant from sinister Or maintaining a scimitar bendwise sinister proper), cited in the commentary."
[August 1993 LoAR, A-Atlantia] "Laeghaire O Laverty ...we grant difference between a dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an eagle's foot." Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:46:45: [Badge] I found this pretty hard to identify; Rohese thought it was just fine. College Action: Badge: Forwarded to Laurel.
9. Catan ingen Míchíl. (Shadowlands, Shire of the) New Device. Argent, a domestic cat sejant guardant sable with tail sufflexed and dexter forepaw raised, and on a chief embattled azure two needles in saltire inverted argent. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:55:22: Last edited on 2009/07/28 15:11:53 The phrase "with tail sufflexed" really doesn't add anything useful to the blazon. (Indeed, "sufflexed" does not appear in any of the heraldic dictionaries, not even in the normally comprehensive Parker.) I only recall having seen the term used in describing a chain depending from a collar which winds about the body of the critter so collared and chained.
On the chief, it is the needles, and not their arrangement, which is inverted.
Blazon fu: Argent, a domestic cat sejant guardant, dexter forepaw raised, sable and on a chief embattled azure two needles inverted in saltire argent. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:48:42: [Device] In addition to no longer (mis)using “sufflexed” (the word’s not even in the OED!), we don’t normally blazon the posture of the tails of most critters.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/01 15:47:13: Closest found was versus "Argent, a cat sejant, dexter paw raised sable, on a chief embattled vert two crescents argent." (Gwenllian Basset, Device, August of 1993). I see 2 CD's for changes to tincture of the chief and to type (and arrangment) of the tertiaries. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/25 19:50:20: [Device] Blazon as: "Argent, a cat sejant guardant, dexter paw raised sable, on a chief embattled azure two needles in saltire inverted argent." College Action: Device: Reblazoned as “Argent, a domestic cat sejant guardant, dexter forepaw raised sable, and on a chief embattled azure two needles inverted in saltire argent.” and forwarded to Laurel.
10. Chrestien Brûlé. (Bordermarch, Barony of) New Name and Device. Sable, a flame proper between three crosses crosslet fitchy and a bordure argent. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:55:59: Nice flame! Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/07/31 01:43:14: Last edited on 2009/08/01 04:35:27 The URL for the article cited for "Chrestien" is wrong; it should be http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/paris.html .
The URL for the article cited for "Brûlé" is also wrong; it should be http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Gace_Brule .
The article itself is among a collection based on the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (published in 1911) to which the website's staff have "where necessary and possible add[ed] the current point of view", according to the site's "About" page. It is a biographical entry on a trouvere who died around 1220. It does not include the form "Brûlé". The spelling used through most of the article is "Brule", which I would assume is the modern normalized form for the poet's surname but which also appears in a quote within the article from "the Chroniques de Saint-Denis". (No mention is made of whether the quote has been translated to modern French or in any other way standardized.) The only other spelling included is "Brusle", which is mentioned in the description of a deed from 1212.
A footnote on page 254 of Paulin Paris' _Le Grandes Chroniques de France_ (http://books.google.fr/books?id=OCQVAAAAQAAJ ) reads, "Gace Brulé. Ce mot est corrompu dans presque tous les manuscrits. Je ne l'ai vu correctement reproduit que dans celui de Charles V. Les autres mettent Gatelibrige, Gacelibrie, etc.. . ." My French, she is not so good, but PROMT
(http://translation2.paralink.com/ ) tells me this means, "Gace Brulé. This word is corrupted in almost all manuscripts. I saw it correctly reproduced only in that of Charles V. The others put Gatelibrige, Gacelibrie, etc.. . ."
The Grand Chronicle of Charles V is known by the shelfmark BNF Français 2813. It was penned in Paris between 1375 and 1380, and it's available on the website of the French National Library. (Unfortunately, so far as I can tell it's impossible to link to it directly, but if you put the shelfmark into the "Cote" field on the website's search engine at http://mandragore.bnf.fr/jsp/rechercheExperte.jsp , then click "images", you'll see it.) The mention of the poet is probably somewhere between folios 216 and 266v, since those cover the years within which he lived. If the submitter can find it, and if it does, indeed, use "Brulé", a printout would be compelling evidence that that spelling was used in period.
On the other hand, if Answers.com has quoted him correctly http://www.answers.com/topic/gace-brul , Peter Davies asserts in the French Literature Companion, "His surname apparently refers to a heraldic device on his shield (brulé = bur (e)lé, ‘barred’, ‘barry’)." If that is the case, I'd be concerned about this being a byname that is unique to a single, historically significant individual. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/01 15:53:09: [Device] No conflicts observed. Comment by Alden Drake (Sable Roundel) on 2009/08/04 15:04:21: Clear of Aliskye MacKyven Raizel: The following badge associated with this name was registered in August of 1995 (via Caid): Sable, on a flame Or another gules charged with a sinister gauntlet clenched affronty argent, a bordure argent. for Clan Kyven. 1 CD for addition of secondary charges (crosses crosslet fitchy) and 1 CD for removal of tertiary charge (another (flame) gules charged with a sinister gauntlet...)
Intersting to note the 1995 badge has 4 layers (field, flames Or, flames gules, gauntlet). Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/14 16:15:54: Conflict found (or maybe the same person?):
Chrestien Brûlé This name was registered in September of 1992 (via Ansteorra). Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 17:53:44: Last edited on 2009/08/23 17:57:33 [Name] Kingdom can compare names in the files or you could ask the submitter on his Facebook page or the Bordermarch list. This conflict has to be resolved before the submissions can leave kingdom.
Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/25 20:28:19: This IS the same person. I've compared names on both forms in the original file and this one. I'm guessing he didn't realize his name did in fact get registered back in 1992.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/25 20:46:06: One hopes kingdom refunds the appropriate amount of fees.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:32:12:
I've seen it generally handled by kingdom not returning the fees but sending it through a variant of the "free resub" path - he gets to use them for another submission, such as a household name, alternate name, or badge. The reason is that the "what he thought was a new submission" did go through submission processing (which is what the fees go towards), it just got returned. (The key here is that the fees are for submission processing not registration.)
Since, in any of the "resub" cases I listed above, the item would be a "new [whatever]" when it left kingdom (just like this "new name" would have been if we had not caught it), this type of processing only affects kingdom-internal tracking and keeps all the monies in the right processing buckets.
More than once I've seen this type of issue get caught at the Laurel level. And the item gets returned in an LoAR. At that point, the monies don't get returned because the item went through the submission process.
As submission heralds, we should always remember to ask "Have you ever submitted before?" when helping the submitters fill out forms. Several times each Pennsic, I end up writing on the submitter's form that he/she submitted "sometime in the early 90s via the Middle and the name was X" to at least give the kingdom a chance to find the item. And at least once or twice a Pennsic we find the name registered when the submitter had no clue it had ever made it to Laurel.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:21:57: Unfortunately, he's not the first person this has happened to. I'm just glad he ended up with the name he wanted and, given he submitted it again, it seems like one he likes. That's always good.
Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/25 20:30:49: Last edited on 2009/08/25 21:20:06 This should actually be a Resubmitted Device.
His original submission, (probably reblazoned from) " Sable, in dexter chief a cross throughout argent and in sinister base on a flame proper a cross argent " was returned by kingdom in June 1992 for offensive symbolism.
(edited to fix italics tag problem) Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/25 20:48:15:
Last edited on 2009/08/25 21:20:57 A cross and flames? Yes, that would do it.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:20:43: Since this is a resubmitted device, it affects how much in fees Laurel gets (zero - the Laurel level is a "forever" free resub rate). Making sure that the device is listed in OSCAR should cause the correct calculation.
Given the time delay since he originally submitted, he's past Ansteorra's "free resub" time period, so the amount he paid kingdom is correct since it's the same price as a new submission.
We need to update all copies of the device form before it goes forward - to reflect that it is a resubmitted device and is associated with a registered name.
College Action: Name: Name was previously registered in September of 1992 (via Ansteorra). Device: Forwarded to Laurel. Note: This was a resub to kingdom, not laurel. That means the Laurel is owed a fee for the submission.
11. Conall Riabhach. (Elfsea, Barony of) New Name for Alternate Persona. Tjörvi inn irskim Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/07/28 22:22:37: Primary name registered May 1998 (via An Tir). Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/23 04:45:28: The documentation has
I'm assuming one of them is a typo... Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/31 17:25:25: Typo I'm assuming. Form says
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/25 20:57:11: Last edited on 2009/08/25 21:11:50 [Name] If he wants it to be Norse then Tj{o,}rvi inn írski Tj{o,}rvi - Geirr Bassi page 15 male given name inn írski - Geirr Bassi page 23 byname meaning "Irish". Note that the i is accented.
[February 2009 LoAR, A-Artemesia] "{O,}gmundr hrókr. Submitted as Ogmundr hrókr, the given name was documented as a variant of Agmundr found in the Viking Answer Lady, "Old Norse Men's Names". However, Ogmundr does not in fact appear in this source. The variant spelling listed in the article is Ögmundr. Using the o-umlaut (ö) instead of the o-ogonek ({o,}) is a later convention that really only gained popularity in modern times because of the limitations of standard typefaces. We have changed the given name to {O,}gmundr to follow the normal transcription system." Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/31 17:27:36: Hmm, on the top of the form he's written a character that is o-with-umlaut-and-ogonek. I'm assuming he wants the o-ogonek character really.
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:50:06: [Name] Geirr Bassi, p.34, says that the {o,} to ö shift was part of the change from preclassical to postclassical orthography. I don’t find definitions of those terms anywhere in his book. College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel as “Tj ǫrvi inn írski”.
12. Cristiana inghean Fearghus. (Steppes, Barony of the) New Name. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 04:46:10: The article cited for "Cristiana" doesn't include any mention of "inghean". Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/14 16:21:32:
The grammatically correct Early Modern Irish form would be
The Scottish Gaelic form would be
For support for this genitive, see: http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/hng16gaelic/scottishwomanpat.php Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 15:51:47: Mixing Scots and Gaelic gets the submitter one non-period thwack under Elspeth O'Shea, 02/00. You should be able to do this much grammar correction with minor changes only.
College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel as “Cristiana inghean Fhearghuis” as the correct genitive for Scottish Gaelic. The formation was documented on the submission with the information provided by Mari.
13. Dallán of the Loch. (Loch Soilleir, Barony of) New Name and Device. Argent, in page a wolf’s head erased and three gouts, two and one, within a bordure gules. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:57:04: Presumably that should be "in _pale_", not "in page". ;-^) Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/07/31 01:55:30: And the documentation for the byname is?
It is true, is it not, that in order to take advantage of the "of branch name" construction's relative freedom from concerns about compatibility one must use the registered name of an S.C.A. branch, as in "Dallán of Loch Soilleir"? And that in that instance, one is expected to *say* that's what one is doing in one's documentation summary?
I know that if that *isn't* what's happening here the submitter needs to document "of the Loch". Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/03 00:15:18:
[Name] Concur with Lady Orbis that it is only the registered form of a Branch Name which is allowed. Unfortunately, even that can not be used in this instance since only minor changes are allowed. Adding a word should be a major change.
Previous registration does not prove registerability now, but "of the Loch" was registered as a byname in 1991, 1994 and 2003. Electronic records of the documentation for Cynthia of the Loch (April 2003 [Atlantia]) and Michael of the Loch (April 1994 [Ansteorra]) were not available in the OSCAR or Kingdom Web Archives.
The closest thing found to documentation in an LoAR was a reference to 'The Annals of the Loch Ce' in 1349.
"Stiamna Gruamda. Name. "Submitted as Stiamna Gruamdha, the submitter requested authenticity for 11th C and accepted minor changes ... If the submitter is interested in an authentic Irish name appropriate to the 14th-15th C, we suggest Stiamhna Gruamdha. Stiamhna is the Early Modern Irish form of this name and is found in The Annals of the Loch Ce in 1349." [LoAR Feb 2006]
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/14 16:55:16: If I forget, ping me. I have the CoA commentary for April 2003 (since I wrote those name decisions) and can look it up on my home computer for the docs for
In this case, the submitter may like to know that "of the Lake" is a documented byname in Gaelic and takes the form
The problem we'd run into in that case would be the temporal and lingual disparity between the given name and byname since (http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/Masculine/Dallan.shtml) dates
I think we could argue that
na hInnsi - "[of] the Island" - 922 http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/DescriptiveBynames/naHI nnsi.shtml
an Doire - "[of] the Oak-grove/Oak-wood" - 1249, 1487, 1578, 1588 http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/DescriptiveBynames/anDo ire.shtml
na Cairrce - "[of] the Rock" - 1206, 1207, 1208, 1218, 1225, 1230, 1244, 1322, 1504, 1530, 1578 http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/DescriptiveBynames/naCai
rrce.shtml
an Fheadha - "[of] the Wood" - 1265, 1488, 1546, 1547 http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/DescriptiveBynames/anFh eadha.shtml
I'd need to build the Middle Irish form if he wants that, but the support for toponymic bynames in the 10th - 13th centuries makes
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/20 04:29:05: The commentary on Cynthia's name cited Black s.n. Loch. Noting a 1330,
If we end up using any of this to support this submission, we should pull Black and recheck - looking for typos and getting full forms for the examples we want to cite.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 16:11:21: Last edited on 2009/08/28 17:22:18 We have no documentation for the byname, no summary of the Saint Gabriel Reports, a language mix combined with a probably excessive temporal separation of the names and the submitter only allows minor changes. I don't believe that we can fix this with minor changes. Those are several good reasons to return this for further work.
If we send this up Bordure will have to wade through all the Saint Gabriel reports to prepare a summary. The Household box will need to be fixed on the form. It still looks like there is a problem with the language mixture and exceeding a 300 year gap between the names.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/02 20:32:43: Last edited on 2009/08/03 00:19:05 [Administrative] The submission is not on a Badge form, nor is there a Household Name designated to associate it with. It can only be a Device submission.
[Device] No conflicts observed. Nice balance.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 15:23:32: [Device] Blazon as: "Argent, a wolf’s head erased and three gouttes all within a bordure gules." College Action: Name: Returned for further work. There no documentation for the byname formation, no summary of the St. Gabriel reports, etc. It is recommended that the submitter review the commentary by Mari prior to resubmission. Device: Returned for lack of a name. Kingdom is not allowed to create hilding names and a device cannot be forwarded without a name either registered or in submission.
14. Daniel Schade. (Eldern Hills, Barony of the) New Name and Device. Sable, a chevron embattled on the upper edge between two thunderflashes in pile and an anvil Or. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 14:58:05: The charges in chief are "lightning bolts". I am aware of no such charge as a "thunderflash". Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/05 16:22:08: Correct. I was trying (and failing) to remember what the bolts themselves were called, not that entire thing with the two bolts and flames and such.
Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/08/05 17:22:13: Ah! The "entire thing" (see image) is called a "thunderbolt": "Thunderbolt: a bearing derived from the classic mythology, in which the emblem is ascribed to Jupiter." (Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, cf. "Thunderbolt".)
1.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/30 00:06:31: [Device] Seems 2 CD clear versus "Sable, a chevron nebuly on the upper edge between two unicorns' heads erased contourny and a cross crosslet fitchy Or." (Cynric æt Cingesbricge, Device, June 1995) with changes to type of secondary charges and the type of complex line.
Consider versus "Sable, a chevron potenty between two roses and a winged cat passant Or." (Catherine of Cawdor, Device, June 1992). With no CD between embattled and potenty, is there a CD for a complex line on one side versus both sides? Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 18:36:17: Versus Catherine there is one CD for type of secondary group and a second CD for embattled vs potenty of the primary charge. [November 2007 LoAR, A-Gleann Abhann] "Paul the Small. Device. Azure, a crescent and a chief potenty argent. This device is clear of the device for Eric van Roosebeke, Sable, a crescent and a chief embattled argent. There is a CD for changing the field tincture, and as Laurel has previously ruled (03/2000), a second CD for the difference between embattled
and potenty."
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 16:15:47: Last edited on 2009/08/26 17:37:30 [Name] Schade - When you actually read the citation it states: SCHADE: ‘one who harms, an opponent, an adversay’. * dominus Ru[o]dolfus nobilis dictus Schade de Randegge 1225 [Device] Blazon as: "Sable, a chevron embattled between two lightning bolts in chevron inverted and an anvil Or." Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:51:24: According to Fox-Davies, a chevron embattled is embattled only on the upper edge by definition. College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel. Device: Reblazoned as “Sable, a chevron embattled between two lightning bolts in chevron inverted and an anvil Or.” and forwarded to Laurel.
15. Dominique Michelle le Vasseur. (Wiesenfeuer, Barony of) Resubmitted Device Change. Argent semy-de-lys purpure, a peacock close contourny vert. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/02 20:22:12: The reasons for the 2006 return have been been addressed. No conflicts observed. College Action: Device Change: Forwarded to Laurel.
16. Donnchadh Beag mac Griogair. (Namron, Barony of) New Badge. (Fieldless) On a saltire couped engrailed vert nine lozenges ployé Or. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 15:02:15: Last edited on 2009/07/28 15:04:20 As it is the saltire and not just its couped ends which are engrailed, should we blazon this "a saltire engrailed couped"?
The lozenges are all "palewise", which ought to be noted in the blazon. The default would have only the central one palewise, while all of the others follow the orientation of the arms of the saltire on which they are placed. See, for example:
"Charges, whether placed on, or in, an ordinary, always incline in the direction of that ordinary. It would, therefore, be incorrect to draw the four billets, in the fourth quarter [of the arms of Panmure, Per pale argent and gules, on a saltire between four herrings naiant five billets all counterchanged], in the same manner as the centre one." (John E. Cussans, The Grammar of Heraldry, 1866, p. 50) (see also, Handbook of Heraldry, 1882, p. 160) See also, e.g., John Guillim, A Display of Heraldrie, 4th ed., 1660, p. 61, where he shows the arms of Sir Edmund Boyer of Camberwell, Or, a bend vair between two cotises gules, and p. 86, where he shows the arms of Willington, Gules a saltire vair, where the vair follows the orientation of the bend and saltire, respectively. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/03 01:52:18: As the blazon pattern "[ordinary] couped clechy" implies the ends of the [ordinary] are
crosses clechy, I tend to support al-Jamal's proposed reblazon "(Fieldless) On a saltire engrailed couped vert, nine lozenges ployé Or." However, the only similar blazon pattern I found amongst registered armory with saltires was "(Fieldless) A saltire cotised couped purpure." (Sebastian Blackwood, Badge, June 1985), and I can't tell from that blazon if it's the saltire, the cotises or all three which are couped.
No conflicts observed.
Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/08/03 13:48:28: Given that it's a fieldless badge, both the saltire and the cotises must be couped.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 01:00:59: Fieldless, that's embarassing. While verifying that I wasn't looking at something else, I did stumble across a registration worth mentioning for its use of the blazon pattern you suggested -- "Azure, on a saltire embattled couped Or a tower azure, all within a bordure rayonny Or." (Randall Arrowsmith, Device, August 1987)
College Action: Badge: Reblazoned as “(Fieldless) On a saltire engrailed couped vert, nine lozenges ployé Or.” and forwarded to Laurel.
17. Eleanor d’Eresby. (Bjornsborg, Barony of) Resubmitted Device. Gules semy of spears Or, a bear rampant argent muzzled and gorged of a chain sable. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 15:09:38: The bear is not "gorged of a chain", which would simply place a chain around its neck; it is, rather, "collared and chained sable." Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/03 02:03:31: Concur with al-Jamal's proposed reblazon "Gules semy of spears Or, a bear rampant argent muzzled, collared and chained sable."
Seems 2 CD clear of "Gules billety, a bear rampant argent." (Bernard Stirling, Device, Oct 2004) with changes to both the type and tincture of the strewn charges, but nothing else for the artistic detail of muzzling etc. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 20:09:54: Last edited on 2009/08/26 22:47:16 [Device] The reasons for return of the 1999 submission would also include excessive layering and counterchanging. College Action: Device: Forwarded to Laurel.
18. Emeline Neville. (Bryn Gwlad, Barony of) New Name and Device. Per pale sable and vert, a cross patonce fretted of a mascle argent. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 01:12:34: [Device] Consider versus "Per pale sable and vert, a Celtic cross argent and in chief three compass stars
Or." (Lute MacAlpine, Device, July 1999). Is there a CD between a Celtic cross and a fretted one? Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/08/05 17:24:48: As I'm pretty sure that there is a CD between a cross patonce and a Celtic cross (because the ends of the arms are so different), even with the frou-frou in the center, that I would expect there to be a CD here.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/26 23:35:52: Consider possible conflicts with Geffroi de Mosterol December of 2002 (via Ealdormere): "Per saltire azure and sable, a cross fleury argent." and Stephen de Huyn September of 1996 (via Caid): (Fieldless) "A cross of Santiago argent." There is no CD between a cross patonce and a cross fleury or a cross of Santiago. The second CD depends on the fretting with the mascle. The only ruling we have is Eirikr Ivarsson on fretted of a mascle. Under that ruling you don't get a CD for changing the tincture of a fretted mascle because it is a small part of the charge. If someone can't find a way to get a CD from the mascle in the center then there are at least 2 conflicts.
[October 2008 LoAR, R-Caid ] "Iago Margoni. Bendy argent and sable, a cross of Santiago Or. The device conflicts with both the device of Richard of Alsace, Vair, a Latin cross fleury Or and the badge of Calontir, Purpure, a cross of Calatrava Or. Precedent says: ...nothing for the change from cross fleury to a cross of Santiago: "[Per] the March 2001 LoAR, 'A cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago' [Mar 2001, Ret-East, Caitlin Davies]. A cross fleury is even closer in depiction to a cross of Santiago than a cross patonce." [Aug 2001, Ret-Lochac, Cristoval Gitano] [Taran z Azov, 12/04, R-Calontir] (François II) In each case, there is a CD for the changes to the field, but both the Santiago and Calatrava crosses are artistic variants of the cross fleury/flory. As such, they are identical for purposes of conflict."
[July 2005 LoAR, A-Caid] "Eirikr Ivarsson. Name and device. Vert, a saltire Or, fretted of a mascle all within a bordure argent. This is clear of Cellach inghean ui Dhubhthaigh, Per pale azure and vert, a fret and a bordure argent. There is a CD for changing half the field. The saltire part of the fret is more than half the charge, therefore there is a CD for the changing the tincture from argent to more than half Or."
[August 2001 LoAR, R-Lochac] "Cristoval Gitano. Device change. Per saltire sable and gules, a cross fleury argent. This conflicts with Stephen de Huyn: (Fieldless) A cross of Santiago argent. As of the March 2001 LoAR, "A cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago." A cross fleury is even closer in depiction to a cross of Santiago than a cross patonce."
[December 2002 LoAR, A-Ealdormere] "Geffroi de Mosterol. Name and device. Per saltire azure and sable, a cross fleury argent. The submitter has a letter of permission to conflict with a badge of Stephen de Huyn, (Fieldless) A cross of Santiago argent." Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/29 21:21:01: [Device] Consider the reblazon "Per pale sable and vert, a cross patonce entwined of a mascle argent." It seems to me "fretted" and "entwined" are nearly identicle blazon phrases. A recent Precedent may be of use here:
".... Entwined charges are currently defined as having one charge primary and one charge
maintained, unless it is explicitly stated in the registration or a comment. There are an increasing number of these secondary entwined charges, leading to a large increase of time as the person checking must research each potential conflict to see if it is a maintained or secondary entwined charge. This must be simplified. Therefore, in the case of entwined charges, we will adopt the proposal in this fashion:
'An X and a Y entwined' are co-primary charges.
'An X entwined of a Y' is a primary X and a secondary Y.
'An X maintaining an entwined Y' is a primary X and a maintained Y.
"Transfixed charges follow a similar pattern as entwined charges..." [Cover Letter, May 2009 LoAR, under 'From Wreath: Sustained Charges']
To me, the mascle in the submission has the visual weight of a secondary charge. I see a 2nd CD for addition of a secondary charge versus both Geffroi and Stephan.
Consider, however, the lack of contrast between the mascle and the cross. If the black outline of the mascle didn't exist, would the resulting emblazon be identifiable?
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:53:57: [Name] No conflicts found. [Device] If we’re going to continue registering any old equal-armed cross with an annulet as “an equal- armed Celtic cross”, perhaps we’ll need to look again at what crosses conflict with one another. (...mumble, mumble...in MY day, we...mumble, mumble...) College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel. Device: Reblazoned as “Per pale sable and vert, a cross patonce entwined of a mascle argent.” and forwarded to Laurel.
19. Fáelán mac Cellaig. (Bjornsborg, Barony of) New Badge. (Fieldless) A wolf passant, per pale Or and sable. (Full body Wolf with a green tongue / the front half gold and the back half black.) Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 01:31:12: Consider versus "Per bend sable and Or, a wolf passant counterchanged." (Snorri inn hávi, Device, August 2006).
Line drawing is viewable at the bottom of http://atensubmissions.nexiliscom.com/4-2006LoI.shtml
The line of division in Snorri's device goes from just below the eye to a third of the way up the rear leg. Is this sufficient for a 2nd CD? Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/08/17 16:45:19: Hmm. That is a question. RfS X.4.d says "Changing the tincture of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear difference"
I have puled down the emblazon and colored it for reference here. Not the best coloring job
but it will suffice for this discussion.
My understanding is that flipping the colors counts so per pale sable and Or is a difference from per pale Or and sable. I cannot quickly find a rule or precedent to cite in support of this though. I have looked but I do not have the time to fully search everything right now. So it is possible I am mistaken, though I don't think so obviously.
The problem we run into here is that the line is skewed. I am unsure if there is any precedent covering this specifically but if my memory of the previous point is correct then I would say you should probably get a CD even with per bend. If nothing else there may be enough to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt in this.
1.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/18 02:17:50: Last edited on 2009/08/18 03:02:38 Thought I remembered a similar question in previous internal commentary. Bordure asked in Ansteorra's Nov 28 2007 LoAR:
"3: Gregor MacBeathain - New Device "Per saltire Or and azure, a cat rampant guardant counterchanged. "Consider versus "(Fieldless) A lion rampant chevronelly Or and azure." (Thurvald Redhair 10/94). There is 1 CD per RfS X.4.a.i for tincture to the field. There is no CD for changing the posture from rampant to rampant guardant nor for changing the charge from lion to cat. We are unsure if there's a CD between "chevronelly Or and azure" and "per saltire azure and Or" per RfS X.4.d, and were unable to find a precedent either way. The field divisions "chevronelly" and "per saltire" are considered substantially different, so we assume the same applies for charges of divided tincture."
The Device was registered in the 03-2008 LoAR without comment, so I can only assume the analysis was correct.
The same argument should apply between "per pale Or and sable" and "per bend Or and sable".
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 20:47:19: Last edited on 2009/08/23 20:48:33
Look in Rfs.X.4.d d. Tincture Changes - Changing the tinctures or division of any group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear difference.
The phrase that applies here is division of any group of charges. If you change the tincture or division of a charge you get a CD.
It's in the Rfs and thus isn't in the precedents.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 20:37:07: [Badge] The name was ruled on in May and should be published shortly. Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:39:34: Real shortly. Final proofpass comments for that LoAR have been returned to the Laurel team. So, only final changes and posting remain. How long that takes varies by LoAR, but I'd start checking the website around the end of August (or maybe after the Labor Day weekend) to see if it's posted yet.
Regardless, the results should be available by the time this item would appear on an LoI. So, if it goes forward, we should update the info with whatever appears in the May LoAR. And, if the name ended up getting returned, this will also need to be returned for lack of a name.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/29 17:46:59: Fáelán mac Cellaig registered May 2009.
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:55:35: If the wolf were per pale Or and sable, wouldn’t the right hindfoot be Or as well? If the dividing line on the body were extended, that would be the case. I know of no way to blazon this as drawn. College Action: Badge: Forwarded to Laurel.
20. Fionnghuala inghean Ui Conchobhair. (Eldern Hills, Barony of the) New Name and Device. Argent, two grayhounds combatant azure both sustaining a book open gules. Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/07/28 02:31:00: The final element needs to be lenited:
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:49:37: Yep. You're definitely correct on that one.
The easy fixes here would be for her to:
1) change one of the elements (given name or byname)
or
2) add a descriptive byname. For example
or
3) add a father's given name. For example, if her father's given name were
Regardless what she chooses to do, the name will need to be conflict checked again. If she chooses option 3, we will need to check the "father's full name" portion of her name for presumption. Using the example above, if a
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 04:56:11: How exactly is the fact that "ingen" appears on the cited page as part of a name from the annals and is glossed as "daughter of" evidence that "inghean" is the right form for the 13th century? Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 01:45:00: [Device] Consider the reblazon "Argent, two dogs combattant azure maintaining between them an open book gules." The book is too small to be reproducable with the blazon pattern for a sustained charge "in fess a [Charge X] gules sustained between two [Charges Y]".
Multiply clear versus "(Fieldless) Two wolves combattant azure maintaining between them in chief a mullet of eight points pierced gules." (Jean de Leedes, Badge, Dec 2003) with changes to field and both type and placement of the maintained charge.
Seems 2 CD clear versus "Argent, a wolf rampant to sinister azure maintaining a grenade gules." (Selwyn of Darton, Device, Nov 2007) with changes to the number of primary charges and to the type of secondary charge. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/27 06:05:23: [Device] The book would have to be drawn larger to be sustained. In this emblazon it is maintained causing conflicts with: Selwyn of Darton November of 2007 (via Lochac): "Argent, a wolf rampant to sinister azure maintaining a grenade gules."
One CD for changing number of canines. Nothing for a dog vs a wolf or the maintained charges. Jean de Leedes December of 2003 (via the West): (Fieldless) "Two wolves combattant azure maintaining between them in chief a mullet of eight points pierced gules." One CD for fieldless. Nothing for wolves vs greyhounds or the maintained charges. Draw the picture to accurately match the blazon and the problem should be solved.' Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:57:31: [Name] We also noted that Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair was registered in December of 2003 (via Drachenwald). [Device] All adjectives in a blazon do not follow the noun they modify: “...an open book gules.” Are the puppies indeed to be considered sustaining rather than maintaining the book? I think we need some more objectively applicable rules for deciding. Of course period emblazon would likely have the book clearly primary and larger than the two dogs, since it’s the central charge. Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/09/12 03:27:57: Another note: the ILoI's statement: O’Brien, Kathleen M., “Index of Names in Irish Annals: Fionnghuala”, gives Fionnghuala ingen Ruadhri Ui Conchobhair: dated 1247.
is incorrect.
The entries there that are for the year 1247 are:
Co 1247.10 Findguala ingen Ruaidri hI Conchobair C M1247.10 Fionnghuala inge_n Ruaidhri Ui Conchobhair LC LC1247.11 Finnghuala, ingen Ruaidhri h-I Chonchobair
Note that none of these match the one listed in the ILoI. Also, the underscored e is important. As noted in a header section on each page with data in my annals index:
In some Gaelic scripts, there is a character that looks approximately like a lowercase f, but without the crossbar. This character (represented by an underscored , e_, in the entries below) sometimes represents e and sometimes ea depending upon the context of the text.
So, what the C entry (Annals of the Four Masters, vol. 3) shows is what we would write as
and
Jean de Leedes December of 2003 (via the West): (Fieldless) "Two wolves combattant azure maintaining between them in chief a mullet of eight points pierced gules." One CD for fieldless. Nothing for wolves vs greyhounds or the maintained charges.”
21. Helene Dalassene. (Crown lands – Southern Region) New Badge. (Fieldless) On a castle sable, two roses Or. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 02:02:37: Consider the reblazon "On a castle of two towers sable, two roses (abased?) Or."
Consider versus "(Fieldless) A castle sable charged on the dexter tower with a lion's head erased and on the sinister tower with a unicorn's head couped respectant Or." Simon MacLeod, Badge, May 2004 -- registered jointly with Katerine Radford of Dreywick). A castle is not simple enough to be voided, so there must be 2 changes to the tertiary charge group for a CD. Under RfS X4.j(i)" ... Changes of type, number, tincture, posture, or independent changes of arrangement may each count as one of the two changes ... " Is there an independent change of arrangement with these abased charge? Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/08/05 17:26:22: Castles have two towers by default; it is any other number (one, three, four, etc.) that must be specifically blazoned.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/27 03:35:36: Last edited on 2009/08/27 16:24:23 [Badge] This ruling may answer your question.
[May 2004 LoAR, A-An Tir] "Eisenmarch, Shire of. Badge. (Fieldless) On a tower sable two mullets in pale Or. This is clear of Simon MacLeod, (Fieldless) A castle sable charged on the dexter tower with a lion's head erased and on the sinister tower with a unicorn's head couped respectant Or. There is a CD for changes to the field and another for the arrangement of the tertiary charges (from in fess to in pale). The placement of the tertiary charges is not forced."
Theoretically, it looks like you could get a position difference by blazoning the two roses in base that would go with the type difference. In reality, I believe you would get into a visual conflict.
College Action: Badge: Reblazoned as “(Fieldless) On a castle sable, two roses Or.” and forwarded to Laurel.
22. Helene Dalassene. (Crown lands – Southern Region) New Badge. (Fieldless) A dog’s head erased ermine, collared Or. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 02:05:02: No conflicts observed. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:58:46: The default tincture for the tongue would be gules, and would add a bit of color here. It would also be an improvement to scatter ermine spots a bit more carefully so that they’re not cut off by the edges of
the head. College Action: Badge: Forwarded to Laurel.
23. Hildr SteinÞórsdóttir. (Unknown) New Name. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/05 07:01:05: Does Geirr-Bassi give no dates for either of the given names? Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 21:16:45: Read the introduction in Geirr-Bassi, The Old Norse Name (especially the Given Name Intro about sagas and sources) and you will have your explanation.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/23 21:30:40: Thanks, but I don't have Geirr-Bassi. (That's why I asked.)
Of course, the point of documentation summaries is to provide basic information about submitted name phrases (like where, when, and in what context the cited sources say they were recorded) so that they can be evaluated by people who don't have the cited sources on hand. Too bad the summary here is incomplete (like so many others).
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 00:06:28: Also try www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/norse/landnamabok.html Everything in Geirr-Bassi is period.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/23 04:49:24: I'm betting the capital thorn in the byname is a typo. That should be checked. My bet is that the byname should be
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 18:59:37: No conflicts found. College Action: Name: Fixed typo in the name (Þ -> þ) and forwarded to Laurel.
24. Ioannes Dalassenos. (Crown lands – Southern Region) New Badge. (Fieldless) On a double-headed eagle displayed Or, a tower gules. Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 15:13:29: As eagles, and especially double-headed ones, are "displayed" by default, we can safely drop "displayed" from the blazon. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/04 02:25:20: Closest found was "Azure, on the breast of an owl displayed Or, a Russian Orthodox cross gules." (Fevronia Murometsa, Device, March 1973). Eagles and owls were period charges, so this may be X2 clear. The period posture of an owl however was close, so at worst these are 2 CD clear for difference
in type of bird. Too complex to be voided, there's no CD between the teritiary charges. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/27 16:56:47: Unfortunately, this is a conflict with Fevronia Murometsa March 1973: "Azure, on the breast of an owl displayed Or, a Russian Orthodox cross gules." One CD for the field. Nothing for owl vs eagle in displayed posture and nothing for type only change to the tertiary.
[January 2009 LoAR, R-Middle] "Jadwiga Wlodzis{l/}awska. Device. Purpure, on a double-headed eagle Or an escutcheon gules.
The device conflicts with the device of Fevronia Murometsa, Azure, on the breast of an owl displayed Or a Russian Orthodox cross gules, with a single CD for the change to the field. There is no difference between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, based on the January 2000 Cover Letter:
The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness" [step from standard period practice]. (emphasis added)
Since an eagle is not a suitable underlying charge for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii, there is also no CD for change to type only of the tertiary." College Action: Badge: Returned for conflict with [Fevronia Murometsa March 1973: "Azure, on the breast of an owl displayed Or, a Russian Orthodox cross gules."]
25. Ioannes Dalassenos. (Crown lands – Southern Region) New Badge. Per fess indented argent and gules, two porticullises per bend counterchanged. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/28 00:13:21: [Administrative] Yes, I believe he does need to submit a letter of acceptance.
[Badge] Consider the reblazon "Per fess indented argent and gules, in bend two portcullises counterchanged." The phrase "per bend" is used when indicating how to tincture a field or charge. The phrase "in bend" indicates an arrangement of charges. (Similarly, "bendwise" indicates an orientation of a charge).
Consider versus "Per bend sinister argent and gules, two portcullises counterchanged." (Brendan Mac an tSaoir, Device, March 1991). Like the subission the charges are arranged in bend with one gules in the upper left and the other argent in the lower right. Unfortunately, I only see 1 CD for multiple changes to the field. Comment by Eirik Halfdanarson on 2009/07/28 19:47:38: Actually there is only one CD for the changes to the line of division between the two devices.
Comment by Ioannes Dalassenos on 2009/07/28 08:15:33: I have an acceptance letter and I thought it was in the bundle of paperwork.
It will be on the way to Asterisk by the end of the day. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 05:23:04: It *is* in the original submission packet. I just checked the copy in my files.
Comment by Estrill Swet (Asterisk) on 2009/08/03 16:41:44: I have received the acceptance letter for the Household Name "Company of Hellsgate" from Ioannes. Comment by Estrill Swet (Asterisk) on 2009/08/18 17:35:00: This badge for the Company of Hellsgate is being withdrawn by the submittor. Ioannes Dalassenos emailed me directly on this. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/23 21:35:39: [Badge] So this badge is being withdrawn and we should no longer worry about it?
The transfer letters should not be anywhere near this badge submission for any reason unless you wish to confuse the situation beyond mortal recognition.
Hellsgate, Company of * This household name was registered to Coenred æt Rauenesdale in November of 2008 (via Ansteorra).
There should be a letter of transfer from Coenred aet Rauenesdale and another Acceptance of Transfer letter from Ioannes Dalassenos. The Admin Handbook text for the letters is given below. These two letters go into the same LoI as separate entries. They should not be in the internal letter at all, since kingdom can take no action other than forward them to Laurel.
Letter of Transfer (Name) A transfer of a name or item of armory requires both a letter of transfer from the owner and a letter of acceptance of transfer from the recipient.
I, [Legal name], known in the SCA as [Society name], do transfer to [Legal name of submitter], known in the SCA as [Society name of submitter], the following [household/personal] name "[Registered name]". I understand that this transfer cannot be withdrawn once made.
[Date] [Signature of [Legal name]]
Letter of Acceptance of Transfer (Name) A transfer of a name or item of armory requires both a letter of transfer from the owner and a letter of acceptance of transfer from the recipient.
I, [Legal name], known in the SCA as ([Society name]) do accept the transfer from [Legal name of submitter], known in the SCA as ([Society name of submitter]) the following [household/personal] name "[Registered name]". I understand that this transfer cannot be withdrawn once made.
[Date] [Signature of [Legal name]] Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/08/26 01:28:05: Alright. Just to make sure everyone is clear and there is no confusion. :-D Yes, I do have BOTH letters
in my grubby little hands at this point. This is an action that actually did not need to appear in the ILoI at all. If it does appear it needs to be 2 completely separate items from any other actions.
Now. As I do have the letters I plan on trying to get them fast tracked in this month's LoI. That should clear up any confusion later on as there would be no armory even appearing in the same letter. They will be two separate items on the LoI. One to transfer and one to receive. Comment by Ioannes Dalassenos on 2009/08/27 02:16:08: Just wait, it gets more complicated (hopefully next month), when we transfer the name to the incipient branch that we should have shortly.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 15:53:19: *grin!* At least you will have already done the transfer process once so you'll know how to go about it!
College Action: Badge: Badge was withdrawn by the submitter.
26. Isabel Barton. (Eldern Hills, Barony of the) New Name and Device. Argent, three boars statant gules. Comment by Isabel de Barton on 2009/07/28 22:11:58: I am aware that most don't have access to this record, so attached is a PDF of the record from Ancestrylibrary.com 1.
-edited to add- Wow, it actually worked. :) I'll see if it's possible to toss up a place-holder graphic in place of the broken one, but no promises there...
Comment by Isabel de Barton on 2009/08/05 18:02:54: I'm glad that it worked! PDF is a very good file type to use, especially since PDF reading programs are free and a PDF document is a bit harder to manipulate than a standard image file (e.g. jpg, gif, png). If you would like me to upload a jpg of that record, I will.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/05 08:23:15: The only thing the PDF document says about the source for its information is that the original data come from the 2nd edition of the Genealogical Society of Utah's British Isles Vital Records Index and that the database, "contains information extracted from birth and christening records from various counties in England and Wales". No mention is made of whether the names have been normalized; without that information, we can't rely upon the forms presented there.
"Barton" appears as a surname in half a dozen marriage records from Durham St Oswald, Gainford,
and Coniscliffe dated to between 1541 and 1600, per Julie Kahan's "Surnames in Durham and Northumberland, 1521-1615" ( http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/juetta/parish/surnames_b.html ).
According Talan Gwynek's "Feminine Given Names in A Dictionary of English Surnames" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/reaney.cgi?Isabel ), "Isabel" can be found in that text dated both to the submitter's desired period and to the period to which "Barton" is attested in the above- mentioned source (specifically to 1268 under the surname "Fort", to 1276 under the surname "Babbel", and to 1535 under the surname "Normanville") .
The two articles I cited suffice as evidence that "Isabel Barton" is a plausible late-16th-century English name, in my opinion. But unmarked toponymics do not seem to have been widely used in 13th-century England (based on the tax rolls and other sources cited in the Medieval Names Archive's guide to English Names from the Conquest to 1300, at http://s-gabriel.org/names/eng1066to1300.shtml ). The submitter should therefore be made aware that "Isabel de Barton" would be a better name for her period. (She already has documentation for that byname, as presented in her original summary.) Comment by Isabel de Barton on 2009/08/07 17:46:06: Since you have noted that Isabel de Barton would be a better variation of the name for the period I would like to represent, I would like to amend my name from Isabel Barton to Isabel de Barton.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 16:04:30: Magnus noted a conflict below. The only question is whether or not the person is important enough to protect. If not, you're in the clear. If she is, then your name will likely be returned for conflict.
So, you may want to think about what you want to do in that case. Something like "in the event my name is determined to be in conflict with the noted Elizabeth Barton, I would like to ..."
I think period constructions at that time would be given + patronymic byname + locative byname and given + occupational byname + locative byname, but I'd need to check info at home to be certain. If so, something like
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/05 23:54:48: [Device] No conflicts observed. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/22 04:30:51: Last edited on 2009/08/23 15:58:23 Isabel conflicts with Elizabeth. This submission conflicts with the historical Elizabeth Barton from the 1911 Britannica encyclopedia. She was well known as part of Henry VIII's reign. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Elizabeth_Barton ELIZABETH BARTON (c. 1506 - 1534), "the maid of Kent" was involved in the Catholic plots against Henry VIII during his divorce and split with Rome. Elizabeth was one of the best known to be executed for treason in 1534.
[March 2009 LoAR, R-Æthelmearc] "Isabel la Roja. This name conflicts with Elisabetta Rosa. In Italian, Isabel(la) and Elisabetta were forms of the same name (i.e., Elizabeth), according to de Felice, Dizionario dei nomi italiani, s.n. Isabella. Additionally, we have evidence that forms of both names were used by the same person, e.g., Isabella Teotochi who was also known as Elisabetta Teotochi. Given this information, the comparison of the given names is analogous to previous rulings saying that Elizabeth and Isabel conflict in English: Isobel de la Rose. This name conflicts with Elizabeth de Rose, registered July, 2002. According to Withycombe, The Oxford English Dictionary of Christian Names, Elizabeth and Isabel are used interchangeably in the 15th C. This makes them equivalent for purposes of conflict. [LoAR 07-2006, Lochac-R]"
Now, is the maid of Kent important enough to protect and return the submission? Maybe, but that is an issue for Laurel and OSCAR to debate. College Action: Name: Forwarded to Laurel as “Isabel de Barton” as the submitter requested. Device: Forwarded to Laurel.
27. Justinian de Fenn. (Unknown) New Name and Device. Argent, a fleam sable distilling three gouttes de sang one and two and in chief in fess three increscents azure Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 05:21:30: Was no documentation for the given name submitted? We need some evidence that the form "Justinian" was used in period, and some information on when and in the context of which language it was, before we can evaluate this name.
"Iustin" appears in an Old English context in the Laws of King Æthelred (http://eagle.cch.kcl.ac.uk:8080/pase/DisplayPerson.jsp?personKey=-17925 ). That would be a good temporal match, at least, for "de Fenne", based on the information in the documentation summary. If "Justinian" can't be documented, the submitter might consider that form for his resubmission.
There really isn't a reason to document the "[given name] de [place name]" construction separately in this case, by the way, since "de Fenne" appears in its entirety in the source (which is good, since the assertion, "Mari said so," isn't actually documentation). Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/27 16:12:12:
Source: Baptisms section of Barnstaple parish register of baptisms, marriages and burials, 1538 A.D. to 1812 A.D. , edited by Thomas Wainwright (J.G. Commin, 1903), http://books.google.com/books?id=kgzZiUUNQPcC.
"Justinyan, son of Jacob Wescombe" - baptized 15 Apr 1576 (p. 21, column 2)
"Justynyan, son of Robarte Gyll" - baptized 26 Mar 1597 (p. 39, column 2)
"Justynian, son of John Sallisburye" - baptized 03 May 1599 (p. 41, column 1)
Given these spellings,
time period.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 00:00:34: [Administrative] Since Luarel registers the emblazon not the blazon, an error in the latter within the Letter of Permission shouldn't be a problem, I would think.
[Device] The Letter clears the only conflict observed. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/27 20:31:54: Last edited on 2009/08/27 21:14:25 [Name] Index of Names in the 1582 Subsidy Roll of London by Sara L. Uckelman http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/english/engmasclondon1582.html Justinian
Bardsley s.n Fenn Thomas Fenn 1453 Thomas de Fenne from reign of Edward I. (1272 to 1307)
[Device] Arthur's device was reblazoned which would mess up the permission to conflict letter. It also should clear the conflict with a CD for change of tincture and type of the secondary charge group. [March 2009 LoAR, A-Ansteorra] "Arthur of the Fen. Reblazon of device. Argent, a fleam sable and in dexter three gouttes de sang one and two. Blazoned when registered in December 1982 as Argent, a fleam sable distilling three gouttes de sang, one and two, the gouttes are large enough to be secondaries, and we must blazon them that way, since distilled gouttes are considered maintained charges." Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 19:02:36: [Name] There’s no Old English here. The given name is dated in English from 1567 by Withycombe. Reaney & Wilson cite Walter en la Fenne from 1340, which brings the elements registerably close enough in time, but this is Middle English, not Old English. College Action: Name: Added additional documentation from the submitters and forwarded to Laurel. Device: Forwarded to Laurel.
28. Margaret Gryffydd. (Bryn Gwlad, Barony of) New Name and Device. Sable, a dragon sergeant contourney maintaining a sesfoil and in chief in fess three sesfoils argent Comment by Da'ud ibn Auda (al-Jamal Herald) on 2009/07/28 15:15:27: There is no "e" in "contourny". And only one "s" in "sexfoil". (Well, okay, _two_ in "sexfoils".) Comment by Estrill Swet (Asterisk) on 2009/07/29 14:38:05: Here are the correct forms - Asterisk.
1. 2. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 05:36:22: Last edited on 2009/08/01 06:11:09 The introduction to the cited online article says, in part:
The information in this guide is taken from a tax roll called The Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll of 1292-3.. . .The tax roll was written by people familiar with English and Latin, but not necessarily with Welsh, so names do not necessarily appear in "classic" Welsh spellings. For reference, I have provided the "standard" form of name elements in square brackets.
Both "Margaret" and "Gruffydd" appear in brackets. The forms attested in the tax roll are "Margareta", "Marured", "Griffid", "Gryffid", and "Gryffyd".
Additionally, the author of the article states that all the feminine patronymics in her source took the form "filia [given name]" and that other documents "of a similar period" record "verch [given name]". She doesn't make any mention of the use in Welsh of unmarked patronymics. Comment by Emma de Fetherstan (Star) on 2009/08/05 16:09:57: A note I meant to put on the form but obviously forgot -- the submitter would prefer the spelling
In Tangwystyl's article on 16th Century Welsh Names at http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/welsh16.html , it mentions unmarked patronymics, but that seems to be in an English-recorded context, where the spelling has shifted into English, thus with the byname ending in a -th. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 00:15:32: [Device] Given the revised emblazon, consider the reblazon "Sable, a griffin contourny maintaining a sexfoil, in chief three sexfoils argent."
No conflicts observed, the closest found being "Sable, a griffin contourny and a label argent." (Anssem van Rienen, Device, March 2008) with a CD for change to type and number of peripheral charges.
Consider identifiability of the maintained charge. I totally missed it when I looked at the emblazon while conflict checking. It blends into the claw to me.
Is it period style to have the same charge in two different secondary charge groups? Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 19:06:50: [Device] According to the PicDic, griffins are segreant by default, so your proposed blazon is spot on. There is indeed an issue with the sexfoils: “In addition, the difference in size between the two lymphads in chief and the one in base is so great that there was too much confusion as to how the bird and ships should be grouped together. As a result this violates the ‘Sword and Dagger’ principle as applied to charges of the same type but of different size: one cannot use the same charge as both a primary and a secondary charge on the field in the same piece of armory. [Kate Wrenn, LoAR 12/2004, East-R]” One would assume this might also apply to secondary and maintained charges as well. Versus Anssem van Rienen, there’s a CD for label versus sexfoils, but I’m not sure whether you can get the second for number, since you’d never see three labels.
Comment by Mari ingen Briain meic Donnchada (Rowel) on 2009/08/14 17:23:54: Possible name conflict:
Marared ferch Gruffydd This name was registered in March of 1993 (via Meridies).
Based on info provided by other commenters, my guess is that
From the cover letter for the 04/2002 LoAR:
As a compromise between simplifying conflict checking and basing conflict on interchangeability of bynames in period: in the cases where no particle is present, the unmarked byname shall conflict with a form of the same byname that contains a particle of descent. Particles of descent include those particles that indicate a relationship to an ancestor and so have the meaning 'son', 'daughter', 'grandson', 'granddaughter', et cetera.
So,
[December 1987 LoAR, R-East] "Megwen Rhys-Gwynedd. Name and device. Vert, a daffodil sprig argent with two flowers Or. The given name was stated on the letter of intent to be a Welsh variant of Margaret and the documentation provided by the submittor included an elaborate persona story to support a derivation from the English diminutive "Meg" with the Welsh adjective "Gwyn". Unfortunately, this is not the way Welsh names were formed. The Welsh form "Marared" (Margaret) would be feasible or, to preserve assonance, the name of the Welsh saint "Medwen" might be used. The hyphenated last name is not period Welsh practise. It should also be noted that, if a grammatically appropriate form of the patronymic such as "ferch Rhys Gwynedd" were used, it might suggest that she were claiming to be the daughter of a prince of Gwynedd. (She will accept absolutely no changes to her name.)
College Action:
Name: Returned for conflict with “Marared ferch Gruffydd”. Precedent [December 1987 LoAR, R- East] "Megwen Rhys-Gwynedd”] indicated that “Marared” is the Welsh form of Margaret and ferch is excluded for name comparison. “unmarked byname shall conflict with a form of the same byname that contains a particle of descent” [cover letter for the 04/2002 LoAR:] Device: Returned for lack of a name. Kingdom cannot create a holding name and a name must already be registered or in process for a name to be submitted.
29. Margery Rose. (Bjornsburg, Barony of) New Name and Device. Per chevron azure and sable a winged rose and on a chief argent a compass star sable. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 06:07:43: The submitter has presented us with a given name documented to one culture and a byname documented to another, then asked us to make the name as a whole more authentic without specifying to which culture she wishes it to belong. I suppose the best we can do is just to pick one. . .since the name looks more English than Welsh to me, I'll go with that.
According to Talan Gwynek's "Feminine Given Names in A Dictionary of English Surnames" (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/reaney.cgi?Margery ), "Margery" can be found in the D.E.S. dated to 1213 under the surname "Cordell" and to 1222 under "Gammon". There are additional examples, but none with an earlier date. (Still, that's better than 16th-century Wales, and the references eliminate the temporal weirdness.)
The same article indicates "Margeria" is dated to 1195 and "Marjoria" to 1199 in E. G. Withycombe's Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names under the headword "Margery".
It also mentions that "Margerie" appears as a metronymic dated to 1195 in the D.E.S., under "Margary". But the introduction to the article warns, ". . .there seem to be some fairly consistent differences in the way given names and metronymics were recorded. . .," so that may not be particularly relevant here. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 00:22:18: [Name] Since no major changes are allowed, it's fortunate an English source was cited along with the Welsh for the given name. Orbis has done a good job documenting within the only language possible to change for authenticity of language/culture.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 01:09:21: [Device] I have concerns, but can not prove through Precedents, that the winged rose and the compass star are both a Step from Period Heraldic Practice.
The only Precedent I found regarding a wing object worth citing was not about style, but about conflict checking: "Elyas Tigar. Name and device. Per chevron inverted gules and sable, a winged sword and three decrescents argent. "This is not slot-machine heraldry. A winged object is a single charge, thus there are only two types of charges in the primary charge group - the decrescents and the winged sword." [LoAR, Feb 2007]
The closest Precedent I found regarding Compass Stars has me confused whether it's a Step from Period Heraldic Pracice or not:
"Chrysantha d'Argento. Device. Azure, a mullet of six greater and six lesser points argent between three bezants and a bordure argent. "This mullet is too far from period practice to be acceptable. A compass star is a variant mullet of eight points, and a mullet of eight points is a standard period charge. This would by analogy be a variant of a mullet of twelve points, which is not a standard period charge. This is analogous to the following precedent: "The compass star is not just of sixteen points, but of four greater, four lesser, and eight even lesser points. Basically, it is a variant of a non-period charge, the compass star. Variants of non-period charges have been disallowed before, as being not one but two steps from period practice. The submitter's argument that a Maltese star cross is but one step from a recognized period charge, a Maltese cross, is interesting but not particularly compelling. The fact remains that six armed crosses are not a period charge. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR December 1993, p.10) Neither are compass stars of sixteen points. If the compass star was redrawn as a sun or a standard mullet, that would take care of the problem. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR January 1999, p. 14)" [LoAR, Nov 2001] Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/08 09:18:20: There are a number of comments in fairly recent precedents that imply winged objects are unexceptional. The return of Jovinus Meridius' device submission in the April, 2003 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/04/03-04lar.html#205 ), for example, included the comment, "Usually a winged object is winged with two displayed wings." And when the announcement that Delphina the Mad's badge had been registered was made in the July 2002 LoAR ( http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/07/02-07lar.html#G_ATLANTIA_6 ), a note was included stating, "In the SCA, winged objects such as winged swords, and (presumably) winged skulls, have the wings displayed by default." In neither case was any mention made of the wings constituting a step from period practice.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/08 12:32:09: [Device] My thanks to Orbis for finding the precedent on the Badge for Delphina the Mad "(Fieldless) A bat-winged skull argent." In my opinion, it enforces my concern rather than negates it -- particularly the inclusion of the phrase "and (presumably) winged skulls". To me, that phrase implies a concern over a Step from Period Practice. Being the only charge, a specific decision on whether or not a winged skull was a SFPP variation of a period charge was not needed. Similarly, I do not believe the heraldic class of "flowers" (such as a rose) fall into the heraldic class of "objects" (such as a sword). Unless a more specific precedent is found, this is a concern I feel should be addressed at the Laurel level.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/19 22:31:41: Last edited on 2009/08/19 22:33:52 I keep coming back to that "compass star". I have real doubts about its identifiability. My first thought was, "What's that? Some specialized variant of a lozenge ployé?" I was mildly incredulous when I read the blazon. It looks nothing like the "star" in any compass rose I've ever seen.
In addition, while I'm not entirely sure that a compass rose is an "artifact", it seems that at least the underlying principal behind RfS VII.3 comes into play here. Mullets of eight in period armorials usually have long, narrow points, as do most of the wind roses I was able to find on period maps online. (I didn't find any compass roses in contexts on which I was prepared to rely. Wind roses are the most closely-related motifs I could think of.)
The images I uploaded are from a map from 1490 (http://ancientworldmaps.blogspot.com/search/label/15th%20century ), a map from 1590 (http://www.cummingmapsociety.org/maps.htm ), and an armorial from between 1554 and 1568 (http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/0002/bsb00020447/images/index.html?seite=259 ). They're consistent with the other period images I've seen.
1. 2. 3. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/21 03:15:37: Last edited on 2009/08/21 03:16:47 [Device] Sorry I didn't think of this reference when commenting that I thought a compass star was a Step From Period Heraldic Practice. ".... There are other varients of the mullet, unique to Society heraldry. The "compass star" is a mullet of four greater and four lesser points [517] ... " (PicDic 2nd ed under 'Mullet'). The research by Orbis confirms previous attempts -- the compass star is not a period charge.
Knowing the Society definiton, however, I personally don't have a problem with identifiability. The rays are straight lines, the four greater points are oriented crosswise and the four lesser ponints are oriented saltirewise. I can blazon the tertiary charge in this submission only as a compass star.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/09/10 08:43:37: "I can't think of anything else to call it," isn't the same as, "I'd immediately think 'compass star' when I saw it, even if I didn't have a blazon to reference." Which are you saying?
In either case, what about the issue of period depiction? As I said, a compass star isn't an artifact, exactly, but it still seems that they should be drawn as much in keeping with period style as possible to comply with the principles represented in RfS VII.3. Specifically, since they are permitted as variants of mullets of eight points, it seems they should be drawn as much like period mullets of eight as possible. Short, squat, points (the smaller almost nonexistent) aren't consistent with any period emblazon of such mullets that I've seen.
I finally found the image I originally wanted to use to illustrate my point (at [http://daten.digitale- sammlungen.de/~db/0001/bsb00018706/images/index.html?seite=343
1.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/09/11 01:36:42: [Device] The compass star is specifically classified as a Compatible Charge (RfS VIII.6a) rather than a Period Charge or Artifact. IMO the tertiary charge is identifiable as a compass star -- " ... defined in the Society as a mullet of four greater and four lesser points ... " (RfS VII.7a). Do I wish the points were drawn as close to period as possible? Yes. Should we require it? Not at the kingdom level (unless we can find a precedent on an unidentfiable compass star and compare the emblazons). Besides, we don't make that requirement for emblazons of beasts, birds, etc. (Wish we did, but then I also wish RfS VII.6 was revoked).
Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 19:08:52: [Name] Is this clear of Magge Rose, reg. 5/00 via Caid? I’d be inclined to say so, but still haven’t grokked the name conflict rules in their fullness. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/09/10 08:47:55: RfS V.1.a.i. says, ". . .two diminutives of the same given name are significantly different if they differ significantly in sound and appearance." I think "Margery" and "Magge" do.
College Action: Name: Added additional documentation from commentary and forwarded to Laurel. Device: Forwarded to Laurel.
30. Wolgang von Sachsenhausen. (Namron, Barony of) New Device. Per pale gules and sable, two halberds in saltire argent Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 01:16:06: Seems 2 CD clear versus "Per pale gules and sable, in saltire a Lochaber axe and a handsaw both argent hafted Or, within an orle Or." (Tomas y Saer, Device, November 2007). Although classified as pole- arms, the tincture of the hafts should make a question of difference in type moot. Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/28 18:16:30: I looked at Tomas' emblazon in OSCAR. The items in saltire look to have more argent than Or. This is going to cause at least a question for a visual compare.
Comment by Estrill Swet (Asterisk) on 2009/08/20 21:58:01: [Administrativia] The name should be Wolfgang von Sachsenhausen. I was concentrating so hard on spelling the last name I messed up the first. LoL. Comment by Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor Herald) on 2009/09/03 19:09:44: Those halberds need serious bulking up! College Action:
Device: Forwarded to Laurel.
31. Wulfgar von Regensburg. (Tir Medoin, Shire of) Resubmitted Badge. (Fieldless) On a wagon wheel sable, a wolf’s head erased argent. Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/07/28 00:52:46: [Administrative] Badge was returned 5/09 (Published in the 6/09 AG). Commentary referred to is item #9 at http://ace.heraldry.ansteorra.org/letter/view/20 Comment by Isabel de Barton on 2009/07/28 22:02:46: In the 2009-05-01 letter, item 10 there was the comment:
There is no contrast between the sun and the ermine quarters, so this must be returned in violation of RfS VIII.2.b.
Would that not apply here with the erased argent of the wolf's head and the spokes of the wagon wheel since the background is fieldless? Comment by Alasdair MacEogan (Bordure) on 2009/07/29 19:08:54: Not in this case as the background is not argent, ermine or really anything. It could just as be Or, azure, gules, or anything else.
If we considered the background of a fieldless badge as argent for the purposes of commentary then we would never be able to register (Fieldless) a XXX argent or (Fieldless) a XXX Or.
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/01 07:13:32: Last edited on 2009/08/01 07:16:27 The white background to fieldless badges on the form can be visually confusing. What you need to remember is that it isn't actually there. The badge consists only of everything else you see. To help them separate fieldless designs from argent-fielded ones, I like to send submitters images like the one below (which features a version of the badge slightly different from the submitted emblazon because I made it during the consultation process, using an earlier version). Maybe it'll help make things clearer for you, too.
1.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/06 01:38:15: Last edited on 2009/08/06 16:28:12 Consider identifiability of the wheel. In both Parker and the PicDic the rim is far wider than the spokes.
Further, the lack of demarcation between the spokes and the rim in tinctured emblazon makes it look like a targe argent argent charge with a cross, saltire and bordure sable.
See the text in Parker under 'Wheel' at http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossw.htm#wheel .
No conflicts observed, but consider a cartwheel/wagonwheel proper (wood is brown) if a redraw is necessary. It heightens identfiability even further.
1. Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/08 08:24:49: Last edited on 2009/08/08 08:25:45 I think it likely that the average person, looking at the badge as emblazoned in the submission, would immediately think, "wheel". In period emblazons, the relative thickness of spokes and rims varies considerably. I've given examples, below, from three different 16th-century armorials showing relatively similar widths in the two.
The badge looks precisely as much like an argent targe with three ordinaries as it does like a targe barry bendy gules and Or with the same three (which is to say, not a great deal). The areas between the spokes are, as discussed in earlier comments, not white, but absent (or transparent, if you prefer). We must remember that when discussing identifiability as much as when discussing contrast.
1. 2. 3.
Comment by Tostig Logiosophia on 2009/08/08 11:37:02: I agree with Orbis that on a complex field the submission would probably not be mistaken for marshalled arms, but still consider it possible on a plain field. Ordinaries were the most used charges in period. I think it likely the average person in the Middle Ages would think of their combination before a far less used charge like a wheel as submitted.
Due to their detailing of the deliniation between the spokes and the rim and the spokes and to the complex lines of the spokes themselves, I don't believe the first two counterexamples are successfull. However, being half sable with no detailing and a non-complex line, I believe the third counterexample does successfully address my identifiability concern. I suggest it be included in the LoI if the badge is forwarded. Would Orbis please cite the source?
Comment by Coblaith Muimnech (Orbis Herald) on 2009/08/08 20:31:08: Soitenly!
The image numbered "3" above is from folio 34r of Anton Tirol's armorial, which was painted in southern Germany between the end of the 15th century and 1540. It's Cod.icon. 310 in the collection of the Bavarian State Library and can be found online at http://daten.digitale- sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001649/images/index.html?seite=73 .
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 01:14:08: Sable charges tend to lose their internal detailing very easily. That is causing some of the identification issues.
Comment by Magnus on 2009/08/24 01:03:07: Last edited on 2009/08/24 01:03:44 [Badge] You are going to make me look this submission history up, aren't you?
Kingdom returned the original badge May 2009. This ruling has 3 of the conflicts for the original submission and I stopped looking after that. [June 1999 LoAR, R-Ealdormere] "Ealdormere, Kingdom of. Badge for the king. (Fieldless) A wolf's head argent crowned Or. This conflicts with Wulfstan of Lucerne "Per chevron argent and sable, in base a wolf's head erased argent.", Talanque "Sable, a horned wolf's head erased argent.", and William of Houghton "Sable a grey wolf's head erased proper." In each case there is just the one CD for fieldlessness, with nothing for the maintained crown, and against Wulfstan nothing for location against a fieldless badge." College Action: Badge: Forwarded to Laurel.