ÆTHELMEARC
COLLEGE OF HERALDS - commentary archive
Letter of Intent #105 Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Feast of St. Pamphilus
1 June, AS XLII
Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find commentary on Æ #105. No conflict checking this
month, I’m afraid -- mundania reared its (sometimes) ugly head. Of
course it wasn’t all bad -- I did spend the Memorial Day weekend at
Colonial Williamsburg. :-)
I did try to be fairly thorough in name and style commentary, however.
I remain your servant and the Society’s.
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Ruth Morrisson
myfanwy@nauticom.net
1. Aibell ingen Chernachain
The docs for the given name and the byname are as cited, except that
no actual documentation is provided for the lenition (Bad Bran Dubh,
no biscuit...). Information about the form of lenition can be found
in Sharon L. Krossa’s “The Spelling of Lenited Consonants in Gaelic”
[URL: http://medievalscotland.org/scotlang/lenition.shtml].
I’m unsure whether the accents need to be added.
Was this St. Gabriel letter specifically to the submitter? If so, why
did she take nearly a decade to actually go through the submission
process? If it isn’t, there is a potential conflict.
2. Aíbell Shuluaine (name change/reconsideration from
Aíbell Shúlglas)
This will probably have to forwarded on to Laurel -- there’s not a
whole lot we can do at this level. It isn’t clear from the original
documentation from XLOI #47 as to whether the color would come before
or after the word (in this case “eye” or “eyed”) being described.
3. Aurèlio di Baldasare
I don’t have de Felice, or the article from The Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians (which does, however,
sound like a wicked cool publication!). The online docs appear to be
as cited, with the exception of the last one (which didn’t want to
load right for me).
4. Clemente de Warrewyk -- Per saltire Or and sable, four anchors
counterchanged.
The docs for the given name are as cited; additionally, Reaney and
Wilson [p. 99, sn. Clementson] cites <Peter
Clementson [sic]>, dated to 1379 and <John
Clementesson [sic]>, dated to 1392.
I don’t have Bardsley; Reaney and Wilson [p. 4.77, sn. Warwick] cites
the name <Richard de Warewic>, dated to around 1196;
additionally [op. cit., p. 217, sn. Hardwick], the name, <Anketill’
de Herdewic [sic]> is dated to 1221 and <Richard
de la Herdewyk [sic]> dated to 1243, were cited.
Nice armory!
5. Clewin Kupferhelbelinc -- Per bend gules and azure, a bend between
two tankards Or.
I don’t have Socin, but the given name can also be found in Uckelman’s
“German Names from Rottweil, Baden-Würtemburg, 1441” [URL:
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/german/rottweil1441.html], and
appears to have three instances of the submitted spelling.
The docs for the byname are as cited.
6. Collette de Paris (device change) -- Azure, a lion of St. Mark and
on a chief argent three fleurs-de-lys azure.
The B&W html version appears to be a photocopy of a colored-in
emblazon; is there no B&W line drawing? If so, this may violate the
armory paperwork requirements, since IIRC, there should be a B&W
copy
of the form included.
It isn’t clear from the information in the PIC-DIC [sn. Winged
Monsters] whether a lion of St. Mark is guardant by default -- only
that it is winged and haloed. I checked various sources to find if
there is a more standard depiction: Parker [p. 243, sn Evangelistic
Symbols] shows a winged lion that is (rampant) guardant but has no
obvious halo (although the image is very small); von Volborth [p. 26,
fig. 179] shows one that is (passant), resting its paw on an open
book, with a head that is somewhat in trian aspect (but I suspect it
is supposed to be guardant as well); in Woodward [Plate XXI, fig. 11]
the lion is obviously guardant, but is also couchant and
holding/main-taining a book. This seems to suggest that the head
position might be a default; however, the posture is not, and probably
should be blazoned.
The chief and fleurs should be somewhat bigger, even if the lion is
made smaller in the process. The lion itself appears to be more of a
kitty with a mane. These are probably not worth a redraw, but it
should get an artist’s note. Nice device otherwise.
Possible reblazon: Azure, a lion of St. Mark
statant [guardant] and on
a chief argent three fleurs-de-lys azure.
7. Eilonwydd ferch Llewellyn Sutor à Gwynydd -- Per pale argent
and
vert, an oak leaf and an acorn inverted counterchanged, in base a
baronial coronet Or, all within a bordure embattled purpure.
Okay, I don’t have Gruffudd, but I doubt that the author’s name
changes spellings mid-stream, as it were.
I also don’t seem to be able to find my copy of CA #66. The other
docs for the given name seem to suggest that <Eilonwedd> might be
a
better feminine form. Additionally, Morgan and Morgan [p. 116, sn.
Gwyn] says: “Gwyn [sic], fem. gwen
[sic] is the adj. meaning ‘white’ [sic]”, which appears to be
another example of the vowel shift for gender.
I don’t have Gruffudd, but the the other docs for <Llewellyn>
appear
to be as cited. The docs for the occupational byname are also as
cited.
The Morgan and Morgan docs for the the locative are more or less as
cited (one really should remember to proofread citations).
Note that the Jones docs also say:
The most typical overall structure for names is a given name
followed
by a single byname -- either a patronym (about half the time), a
descriptive
nickname (about a quarter of the time), an occupation (about
one-tenth of
the time), or a place-name (only one percent of the time).
While there is no specific ruling, the documentation seems to imply
that combining Welsh with Latin (Vulgar) is registrable [URL:
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/weirdness_table.html].
Given the documentation, it seems that, as the submitter has requested
authenticity, the name should be changed. It isn’t clear whether any
of the byname elements need to be dropped, and if so, which the
submitter prefers to keep. If the name elements *can* all be
retained, it seems likely that the name should be changed to something
like <Eilonwedd ferch Lewelyn Sutor Gwynedd > or <Eilonwedd
ferch
Lewelyn Sutor de Gwynedd>.
I realize that the coronet is in base, but it is awfully small. It
(and the bordure) do probably prevent this from being considered
marshalled arms.
The acorn is inverted by SCA default [c.f. PIC-DIC, sn. Acorn].
Possible reblazon: Per pale argent and vert, in fess an oak leaf and
an acorn inverted counterchanged, in base a baronial coronet Or, all
within a bordure embattled purpure.
Complexity count of eight -- four tinctures,
four types of charges
(nine if you count the complex line on the bordure.
8. Etain Eame (badge) -- Sable, two cubit arms fesswise hands clasped
argent, a bordure Or.
These are indeed cubit arms, but the couping should be a little
better. I was trying to determine if this charge group could be
reblazoned as a “foi”. Woodward [p.732], in the “GLOSSARY OF FRENCH
TERMS OF BLAZON” gives its definition as “The name for two arms
issuing from the flanks, clenching the hands in the center of the
shield (v. [sic] p. 205).” In the text [pp. 205-06]
it says:
In French Armory [sic] two arms are sometimes repre- [sic] sented
as issuing from the flanks, the hands being clasped in the centre
[sic] of
the escutcheon; this bearing is known as a Foi
[sic]. The Counts COUSIN
DE LA TOUR-FONDUE [sic] bear: d’Azur, à une Foi d’argent. [sic]
[p. 206] D’Azur, à une Foi d’or [sic] were the arms of FOI
DE ST. MAURICE [sic].
This bearing occurs in a very few instances in English Heraldry
[sic]. Sable, two arms issuing from the flanks and embowed in fess
argent, the hands
conjoined, between three crescents of the second [sic], is
recorded in CAMDEN’S Visitation of Huntingdonshire [sic] in 1613 (Camden
Society), p. 55 for
CRESPIN [sic] or CRISPIN [sic]. Gules, two arms issuing
from the flanks,
the hands joined argent between three hearts or; [sic] are
the armes parlantes
[sic] of PUREFOY [sic], Bishop of HEREFORD [sic] (1554-1557). Another
coat borne by a family of the same name is: Sable, six armed
hands embracing
in pairs argent two and one. [sic]
This last suggests that the arms do not need to be issuant; Parker [p.
305, sn. Hand] appears to back this up:
Sometimes hands are represented as clasping [sic]
or embracing; [sic]
and with French heralds two hands joined thusly are simply bla-
[sic]
zoned une foi. In connection with this the arms of
PUREOY[sic] and
PUREFEY[sic] should be noted.
Parker also cites the arms of Warton, Bishop of Hereford (1554-57),
blazoning them as “Gules, two arms and hands clasped in fesse [sic]
proper between three hearts of [sic]” and showing those arms in the
margin: the arms and hands are depicted as issuant, but are not
blazoned as such.
Possible reblazon: Sable, a foi argent, a
bordure Or.
9. Fionnait inghean Chonchogaidh
The docs for the given name are as cited [URL:
http://www.medievalscotland.org/problem/names/fiona.shtml].
Additionally, ÓC & M [p. 103, sn. Finnat] gives the
submitted spelling
as a post-1200 header form.
I don’t have Woulfe, but I’d certainly take Pelican’s advice on how to
form the genitive and lenition correctly.
10. Fredeburg von Katzenellenbogen (badge) -- (Fieldless) A yale
rampant contourny vert, spotted and armed argent.
Nice badge!
11. Gabriel Hawkes -- Per chevron Or and purpure, an angel holding a
horn in front, in chief two tau crosses, a bordure embattled sable.
The name docs are as cited; note that the Reaney and Wilson cite for
<Hawkwood> is actually on p. 222.
The color html version shows the angel as argent, but it is not
blazoned as such. Is this a typo, or does this need to be pended to
check the tincture?
The bordure needs to be somewhat thicker, and the embattlements should
be more pronounced (i.e., larger) and perhaps fewer as well.
The URL cited for the depiction of the crosses do indeed show tau
crosses like this. However, it isn’t clear whether this is a period
depiction or not (and I don’t necessarily trust Wikipedia for complete
accuracy). According to the PIC-DIC [sn. Cross] tau crosses are found
in the arms of Thirlby, 1540. A Google search [URL: http://www.
google.com] led to information on Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of
Westminster (later Bishop of Norwich and and then Bishop of Ely), but
didn’t seem to have any links that showed his (ecclesiastical) arms
depicted. Friar [p. 172]. von Volborth [p. 20], Brooke-Little [p.
77], Woodward [p. 164 fig. 61], and Parker [p. 178] all show variants
of tau crosses (also known as the cross of St. Anthony). None of them
show the ends of the arms like this -- the amount of splay does vary
somewhat between depictions (from the ends being couped and only
splayed a little to the ends being very curved); likewise, the amount
of splay along the top of the <T> varies from being almost
completely
straight to having a definite concavity. However, none of them show
the ends slanted up -- even the concave ends are basically
perpendicular.
Is the horn in a blazonable position? I would reblazon this as “an
angel argent maintaining a horn (or straight trumpet?) palewise
inverted sable”
Complexity count of seven (four tinctures -- if
the angel really is
argent -- and three types of charges -- eight with the horn; nine if
you count the complex line on the bordure).
12. Godke de Grote
I don’t have Bahlow, but the other docs are all as cited.
Nice name!
13. Grímr Kveld-Úlfr
The name docs are as cited [and I thought we didn’t *allow* claims of
non-human status :-) ].
14. Hauoc the Wild (device -- kingdom-level resub) -- Per chevron
gules and sable, an eagle displayed within a bordure Or.
The point of the chevron should come up a bit further on the field --
I’m not sure that as drawn the field is divided evenly between
tinctures.
The bordure is much too thin -- it needs to be about twice as thick,
even if the eagle is made smaller as a result.
Nice device otherwise.
15. Helewys Spynnere -- Or, on a cross gules five quatrefoils argent
seeded Or.
Seeding the quatrefoils seems odd. Parker [p. 486, sn. Quatrefoil]
says that they *should* be pierced (and are occasionally also found as
slipped); the illustration in the margin shows one that is pierced,
but none of the armory listed are blazoned as such, including that
(apparently) depicted: “Gules, a quatrefoil or-- [sic] Roe,
Middlesex.” Brooke-Little [p. 173, sn Quatrefoil says that they can
be pierced (but doesn’t seem to consider it a default); Woodward, on
the other hand [pp. 322-23] seems to think that only cinquefoils get
pierced.
Nice device otherwise.
16. Henryk Bogusz herbu Zag{l/}oba -- Azure, in pale a scimitar
fesswise and a horseshoe inverted argent.
The docs for the given name are as cited (it also seems to be the only
docs that don’t make my brain hurt.... Additionally, the Bajer article
cited for the clan information [http://www.szlachta.org/heraldry.htm]
has a link at the end for a depiction of the arms of Henryk Pobozny
(the Pious), Duke of Silesia (1191-1241) [URL:
http://www.szlachta.org/baj1_3.htm]; the caption reads:
Pic. 3. Arms of Henryk Pobozny (the Pious), Duke of Silesia (1191-
1241) of the Piast Dynasty, as recorded in the Legend of St. Hedwig
in Codex of Ostrów, 1353.
I did a Google search [URL: http://www.google.com] for <Silesia>.
According to a website I found [URL:
http://www.polishroots.org/genpoland/sil.htm]:
In the Middle Ages, Silesia was
inhabited mostly by people of Slavonic
ethnic background and belonged at first to Poland and later to
Bohemia.
Since the 13th century Silesia together with Bohemia has come under
German cultural and political influence. In the 16th century it
became part
of Austria and a significant part of the inhabitants were
germanized. ...
After WWII, the greater part of Silesia became part of Poland. Only
three districts west of the Neisse River remained German (they are
now
part of the State of Saxony).
This suggests that Henryk the Pious made have been of German or
Bohemian descent; there have been no rulings by Laurel about the
compatibility of Polish with either of these.
The first docs for the byname appears to be as cited (I don’t
read Polish; my grandfather, who died in the late 1960’s, was raised
from the age of 1 in this country and probably didn’t speak or read
Polish either). The second cite, while marginally interesting, only
seems to show that the name is still in use in modern day Poland (the
actual database search engine is found at [URL:
http://www.herby.com.pl/herby/indexslo.html]).
The rest of the docs all appear (as best as I
can tell) to be as
cited. This appears to be a reasonable construction; however, since
I’m not sure, this should be forwarded to Laurel with a request for
further assistance.
17. Lei{dh}ólfr Grimr
The docs for the given name are as cited.
Reading over the docs for the byname, this seems to suggest (at least
to me) that if <Grimr> is being used as a adjectival byname
(rather
than as a second given name) it should maybe be in all lower-case. This
would make the name <Lei{dh}ólfr grimr> (or perhaps
<Lei{dh}ólfr grímr> and I am unsure as to whether
this is considered
a major or minor change (I’m not really a names person).
18. Margretha la Fauvelle -- Per saltire vert and Or, a sun in
splendor counterchanged.
The name docs are as cited. Note, however, that none of the Morlet
cites have dates.
The combination of French and German is one step from period practice.
[URL: http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/weirdness_table.html].
Nice armory!
19. Marianna Molin di Salerno -- Azure goutty d’Or, six lymphads
sailing to sinister Or, charged on each sail with a martlet volant
sinister gules, a base Or.
The gouts are very small and difficult to see around the lymphads. The
base is also pretty small -- according the the PIC-DIC [sn. Base]
it should comprise 1/4 to 1/3 of the shield (I realize that some
consideration has to be made to fit in the boats).
Brooke-Little [p. 135, sn. Lymphad] says “The blazon should state
whether it is ‘in full sail’ [sic] or with ‘sails furled’ [sic].”
Is charging the sail legal, or is it considered presumption? The
little I can find seems to suggest that it might be. Woodward [p.369]
says:
On the seal of EDWARD PLANTAGENET [sic] Earl of RUTLAND [sic],
Admiral of ENGLAND [sic], 1395, the ship of one mast bears a sail
charged
with his arms: Per pale (a) [sic]
the arms of EDWARD THE CONFESSOR
[sic] differenced by a label of three points; (b)
[sic] FRANCE ANCIENT [sic]
quartering ENGLAND [sic], differenced by a label of five points
(vide [sic]
p. 474. I have engraved the ship from DEMAY [sic] on Plate XXXIV.
[sic],
fig. 4.
Von Volborth [p. 57, fig. 474] shows a similar type of depiction; the
caption reads:
A three-masted ship (galleon) in full sail, flying the arms of
Nantes,
France. The ermine in chief represents the arms of Bretagne.
In this depiction, the sails (as well as the chief on the field) are
“Ermine”.
There is a François Precedent that deals with this very topic:
[A drakkar under sail gules its sail charged with a phoenix
Or ] [sic] This
submission raised the question about whether it was possible to
charge
the sail of a ship in SCA armory. The submitter quoted extensive
past
precedent which indicated that charged sails on ships in period
heraldry
appeared to be displays of independent coats of arms. The precedents
then stated that a charged sail, as a display of an independent coat
of arms,
appeared to be an inescutcheon of pretense, and thus was not
registerable
under the rules for that forbid use of inescutcheons of pretense
(now RfS
XI.4). The submitter indicates that, due to the most recent change
to RfS
XI.4, a charged sail would no longer appear to be an inescutcheon of
pretense
and should thus be acceptable.
The submitter is correct that under the current version of RfS
XI.4, a
charged sail would not appear to be an inescutcheon of pretense.
However,
this does not negate the research in the previous precedents (and
supported
by the College of Arms when they commented on this submission) which
showed that charged sails appear to be independent displays of
armory.
Because a charged sail appears to be an independent display of
armory,
it should be treated analogously to other armorial elements which
might
appear to include an independent display of armory. The most obvious
analogous case is that of a flag or banner used as an armorial
element.
Precedent states: "Charged banners [even if only maintained] are
checked
for conflict against already registered armory" (LoAR May 1999, p.
12).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to rule that a charged sail must be
checked
for conflict against already registered armory.
The armory on this sail appears to be Gules, a phoenix Or
[sic]. This
conflicts with .... Gules, a phoenix within a double
tressure Or , [sic] with
one CD for removing the double tressure. [ Eiríkr
Mj{o,}ksiglandi
Sigur?arson ,06/03 , [sic[ R-Caid]
Another François Precedent has to do with flags:
[a gryphon ... maintaining a flag per fess gules and sable
] [sic] This armory
uses a flag that appears to be a display of Per fess gules
and sable . [sic]
According to precedent, "[... sustaining a banner quarterly sable
and gules,
seme of fraises Or] [sic] ... we do not allow a depiction of
heraldic display
which conflicts with registered armory..." (LoAR September 2000).
The flag maintained by this griffin ( Per fess gules and
sable ) [sic] conflicts
with the real-world flags of Monaco and Indonesia (important non-SCA
flags), Per fess gules and argent [sic]. There is
only one CD by RfS X.4.a for
changing the tincture of half the field of the flag.
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if the
September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that acceptance.
Please note that registrations without comment do not establish
precedent.
[ Magdelena Drucker ,02/03 [sic],
R-Æthelmearc]
In the case of the submission, the relevant “armory” on the sails
would be “Or, a martlet volant sinister gules.”
Complexity count of seven -- three tinctures and
four types of charges
20. Megan the Mad (device change) -- Azure semy of ducks naiant Or, a
rapier bendwise sinister inverted argent.
Apparently there’s a story behind this....(I
don’t ask, I just draw)
21. Miyao Kaneko -- Argent, a Japanese iris sable.
This does not seem to be a standard depiction of an iris. According
to the PIC-DIC [sn. Iris] the iris “has no stylized heraldic form,
but is usually depicted as found in nature.” It is also not a
Japanese-style depiction; all the iris mon in Matsuya [c.f. p. 72,
fig. 14 to p. 73, fig. 13] show the flowers in profile, looking, well,
like irises. What this looks like is more like omodaka (water
plantain) [inverted], but not really --Matsuya [p. 51, fig. 8] shows a
water plantain affronty, which is somewhat similar except with all the
petals pointed rather than some being rounded off.
If the submitter wants this to be an iris, it
will have to be redrawn
to be an iris. If what she wants is this emblazon, we’re going to
have to figure out what the heck kind of flower it really is.
22. Miyao Kaneko (badge) -- (Fieldless) A dragonfly bendwise sable.
23. Reyni-Hrefna -- Quarterly arrondi sable and vert, a mullet of
five fracted arrows argent fracts to center.
The name docs are as cited.
Does the prepended byname make this registerable? It could be argued
that this appears to be a single name. Geirr Bassi [p. 18] only says:
The prefix, in contrast to the three other nickname types, precedes
the
given name instead of following it. Sometimes the prefix has become
very closely attached to the name, so that both are treated as one
word: Skarphe{dh}inn [sic] is the name He[dh}inn
[sic] plus the prefix Skarp- [sic].
More frequently the prefix is attached to the name using a hyphen: Skalla-Grímr [sic], Blund-Ketill
[sic], Hrafna-Flóki [sic]. In contrast to nouns
and prefixes, adjective nicknames must agree with the gender of
their
bearers....
I’m not sure that the armory is registerable -- it appears to be
charges overlaying a low-contrast field with a complex line of
division. RfS VIII.3. [URL: http://www.sca.org/
heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#8.3] states: 3. Armorial Identifiability. - Elements must be used
in a design so as
to preserve their individual identifiability.
Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant
reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging,
voiding,
or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design.
For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to
recognize
between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if
most of
the line is also covered by charges.
There have been numerous rulings on the issue of identifiability of
charges overlaying complex lines of divisions on low contrast fields
[URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/
laurel/precedents.html] The most recent have been from François’
term
as Laurel: [Per fess dovetailed purpure and sable ]
[sic] Some commenters asked
whether a complex line of partition was ever acceptable between
sable
and purpure, due to the particularly low contrast of these
tinctures.
Complex lines between low contrast tinctures are rare in period
armory.
However, a smattering of such designs does occur, and such examples
include a variety of low-contrast tincture combinations. As a
result, as
long as the line of partition remains identifiable and is not
obscured by
other elements of the design, complex lines between low-contrast
tinctures
may be allowed between any pair of low-contrast tinctures. The line
of
partition in this emblazon is not obscured by the tinctures of the
field or
by overlying charges, and it will be acceptable if its placement is
changed to
clearly show a per fess division. [ Agneszka the Wanderer
,09/02 , [sic]
R-Meridies
[Per fess wavy vert and azure, a bucket Or ] [sic]
RfS VIII.3 notes that
obscuring a complex low-contrast line of partition may well be
grounds
for return for unidentifiability. We have such a case here: the
bucket
covers most of the line of partition. [ Jorunn Eydisardottir
,01/03 , [sic]
R-Calontir]
There were also a number of rulings from Elsbeth’s tenure. The most
relevant ones are cited here:
[Per chevron wavy sable and azure ...] [sic] The
contrast between the two
halves of the field is so low that the line of division is not
distinguishable.
Past Laurels have returned extremely low-contrast lines of division
even
when there is not an overall charge (for an example, see the return
of
Isabel d'Avignon's device, June 1997 LoAR). [ Anastasiia
Novgorodskaia ,
10/99 , [sic] R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister wavy azure and vert, a Latin cross
bottony ...] [sic] By
long-standing precedent we do not allow a charge to overlap a low
contrast
complex line of division except when the overlap is so small that
the line
of division is not obscured. In this case the arms of the cross
interfered with
the identifiability of the wavy line. [ Matilda Merryweather
,07/00 , [sic]
R-Ansteorra]
[Per bend wavy gules and sable, a single-bitted battle-axe
facing sinister and
in chief two estoiles argent ] [sic] This is being
returned for having charges
overlying a low contrast field with a complex line of division. The
axe itself
is not the problem; its overlap is minor enough to maintain
identifiability.
With the estoile in chief, however, the line of division becomes
fatally
obscured. [ Giovanni de Moncellis ,06/99 , [sic]
R-Atlantia]
I’m also not certain that the arrows are really in a blazonable
arrangement; additionally, they are awfully thin-line, but to make
them larger would also compound the low-contrast/complex line problem.
I’m also not certain of the blazon: “a mullet of five fracted arrows”
suggests that they are conjoined into a mullet shape, and these are
obviously not conjoined. A better (or at least more accurate) blazon
might be “five arrows fracted in mullet, fracts to center”.
24. Rhiannon filia Catell -- Per bend azure and vert, a seahorse
erect argent and a chief Or.
Checking the “Name Pattern” search function in the O and A [URL:
http://oanda.sca.
org/cgi-bin/oanda_np.cgi?p=Rhiannon&b=narrow&c=case-insensitive&l=200&s=
name+only&d=modern&g=disabled&a=disabled], I found not only
the
registration cited, but more recent ones as well:
Rhiannon of Betony Wood (3/06 West)
Rhiannon Negeswr (2/06 Meridies)
Rhiannon ferch Cuhelyn (10/05 Atlantia)
Rhiannon Ross (10/05 Calontir)
The most recent is a holding name, submitted as <Rhiannon
McLaren>,
which was ruled as being two steps from period practice (the second
being the combination of Scots and Welsh).
The other name docs are as cited.
For what appears to be simple armory, this still
has a complexity
count of six (four tinctures, two types of charges).
25. Sibilla Griffyn (change of holding name Siobhan of Misty
Highlands)
Is this the same person who previously tried to change her name to
Siobhan Griffyn? If so, it should say so on the letter.
Welsh and Anglicized Irish together are
considered one step from
period practice [URL:
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/weirdness_table.html].
The given name is is listed as being in an English context;
like I said in previous commentary the byname could either be an
English name in an Irish context, or a Welsh name; c.f., my commentary
for <Siobhan Gryffin>, Æ #104, item # 5 [URL:
http://www.aeheralds.net/Letters/AE104/commentary/ae104myfanwy.html].
26. William Parris (name change from William FitzGeorge of Gloucester)
Um, no, the submitter is male (at least if it’s who I’m thinking of,
he is).
Name docs are as cited.
27. Zianna beguy urdina de Zabaleta -- Quarterly purpure and sable,
in saltire a seahorse contourney [sic] Or between four crosses of
lozenges counterchanged argent and Or.
The docs for all name elements are as cited.
Complexity count of six (four tinctures, two types of charges)
Counterchanging the crosses is strange but
probably registrable.
28. Zianna beguy urdina de Zabaleta (badge) -- (Fieldless) A cross
gringolé purpure with snake heads argent.
The snake heads are drawn as shown in the PIC-DIC [fig. 184]. Having
them be a different tincture from the rest of the cross seems odd;
however, Parker [p. 165, sn. Cross] says:
§ 21. Cross gringolée [sic], is used only in
French heraldry, but it is
typical of a class of crosses which con- [sic] sists of a cross
humetty, but
with heads of animals or some such device issuing from the ends.
(See
under Cross [sic], §7.) In the case of gringolée
the heads of snakes are im-
[sic] plied.
Parker goes on to give two examples of arms
using this type of cross,
and one of them is blazoned as having different tinctures for the
cross and the heads: “De gules, a la croix d’hermine gringolée
d’or.
-- KAER [sic], Bretagne.” Note, that this is actually a fairly early
type of cross; it is depicted in Brault [p. 84, fig. 99] and
apparently blazoned in early rolls of arms as “fer de moulin a testes
de serpenz au fer de moulin” [ibid., pp. 64 and 201].
Bibliography
Brault, Gerard J. Early Blazon:
HeraldicTerminologyintheTwelfthandThirteenth CenturieswithSpecialReferencetoArthurianHeraldry, 2nd Ed. Woodbridge,
Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 1972, 1997.
Brooke-Little, John. AnHeraldicAlphabet, Rev.
Ed. London: Robson Books Ltd.,
1975, 1985.
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme [Bruce Miller] and Akagawa Yoshio
[Kevin Munday]. APictorialDictionaryofHeraldryAsUsedinTheSocietyforCreativeAnachronism,
2nd Ed., 1992.
Friar, Stephen, and John Ferguson. BasicHeraldry. Hong Kong (?): Bramley Books,
1993, 1999.