ÆTHELMEARC
COLLEGE OF HERALDS - commentary archive
Letter of Intent #110 Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Feast of St. David
1 March, AS XLII
Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find commentary on Æ LoI #110. Everything has been
conflict checked through the October 2007 LoAR (I wasn’t sure I would
get it all done, since I’ve had whatever creeping crud virus that’s
going around for the past 3+ weeks).
I remain your servant and the Society’s.
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Ruth Morrisson
myfanwy@nauticom.net
1. Anastasie de Lamoure (badge) -- (Fieldless) A thimble azure
surrmounted [sic] by a needle fesswise argent.
According to the PIC-DIC [sn Needle], the default orientation for a
needle is point to base. I presume that a fesswise needle would be
similar to a fesswise arrow; in the PIC-DIC [sn Arrow] it says:
The arrow’s default posture is palewise, point down. When
fesswise,
the default posture is with point to sinister; but recent
registrations have
explicitly blazoned this.
It may be safer, therefore, to specifically note the direction of the
point here as well.
Possible reblazon: (Fieldless) A thimble azure surmounted by a needle
fesswise, point to sinister, argent.
Possible reblazon: (Fieldless) A thimble azure, overall a needle
fesswise, point to sinister, argent.
probably clear of: Margaret de Luce (badge, 1/02 Atenveldt) --
(Fieldless) A thimble azure charged with a trillium flower Or.
There is a CD for fieldless vs. fieldless and at least one for
removing the tertiary and adding the overall charge/co-primary.
2. Ardan Scot -- Per pale azure and Or, a horse rampant contourny
counterchanged, a chief ermine.
The chief should come down a bit lower on the field, even if the horse
is made smaller as a result.
no conflicts found
3. Arn{th}orr inn sterki
The docs for both the given name and the byname are as cited;
additionally, the byname appears to be formed correctly, according to
the information on strong and weak bynames [Geirr Bassi, p. 19].
4. Berewyn Connell of Blakwode (device resub)
The previous armory submission was on Æ #104, and returned for
redrawing the chevron on the September 2007 LoAR.
clear of: Micheál Sacristain (8/84 Ansteorra) -- Sable, a
chevron
indented between three maunches Or.
There is a CD for changing half the field, and at least one for
significant changes to the secondaries.
5. Deirdre Scot -- Per chevron sable and Or, a chevron between two
horse’s heads contourny argent and a thistle vert tufted purpure.
The heads are couped; while current practice, IIRC, gives no
difference between a head that is couped and one that is erased, it
should be blazoned. The chevron is too thin, and a bit too far down
on the field; although the angle is a bit shallow as well, it may be
acceptable. The thistle also needs be larger, to fill the space.
According to the PIC-DIC [sn Thistle] a thistle “proper” would have a
purple bloom and green leaves and stem. There is a Precedent from
François’ tenure as Laurel that clarifies this somewhat:
The thistle was originally blazoned as proper
[sic]. Thistles, when
proper, have green leaves and slips. The “head” [sic] of the
thistle is
comprised of a ball of sepals with a tuft of petals at the top. the
head
of a thistle proper is drawn with the ball of sepals tinctured in
vert and
the tuft of petals tinctured in gules or purpure. (To quote Lions
Blood,
“Only the mohawk is purple.”) [sic] [Guendolen of Cumbria,
01/03 [sic],
R-Atlantia]
Therefore the thistle in this submission could be reblazoned as
“proper”.
Possible reblazon: Per chevron sable and Or, a chevron between two
horse’s heads couped contourny argent and a thistle proper.
no conflicts found
6. Edward Harbinger (badge) -- (Fieldless) On two arrows in saltire
argent a wolf’s head couped sable.
Possible reblazon: (Fieldless) Two arrows in saltire argent, overall a
wolf’s head couped sable.
Possible reblazon: (Fieldless) Two arrows in saltire argent surmounted
by a wolf’s head couped sable.
clear of: Federico Arcière dal Fióre (badge, 2/94 Caid)
--
(Fieldless) Two arrows in saltire argent surmounted by a rose sable.
There is a CD for fieldless vs. fieldless and one for changing the
type of overall charge.
clear of: Leidhrún Leidólfsdóttir (9/92 Ansteorra)
-- Per fess paly
azure and argent, and argent, in base a wolf’s head couped sable.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, and one for adding the arrows;
there may not be one, however, for position/arrangement on the field.
7. Eoghan Røriksson -- Per saltire sable and vert, in pale a
raven
volant bendwise sinister and a cup fesswise argent.
The docs for the given name are all as cited. In addition to the
dated citations from Black in the documentation, <Johannes
M’Eoghan>
is dated to 1355; additionally, Black [pp. 247-48] also gives
<Eoghann> as a header form, saying:
In later Scots Gaelic and Latin documents the name appears as Eugein,
Eugen, Eogain, Heochgain, Heoghan, Heodgen, Avin, Oan, and Ohan,
and in Welsh as Owein and Ywein.
The docs for the patronymic are as cited. I don’t have Knudsen, so I
can’t tell whether or not it has been cited correctly.
I’m not certain that this is drawn as best as can be -- it has the
feel of marshalling, with the two different charges. RfS XI.4.b says:
b. Such fields may only be used when no single portion of the field
may appear to be and independent piece of armory.
No section of the field may contain ... more than one charge unless
those charges are part of the group over the whole field. Charged
sections
must all contain charges of the same type to avoid the appearance of
being
different from each other.
Because the field is low contrast, the submitter may have tried to
avoid putting the charges across the line of division; however, I
believe that since it’s not a complex line, that might be allowable.
The only remotely relevant Precedent I found dates to Wilhelm’s tenure
as Laurel, which states:
By default charges are placed symmetrically around a field
division.
WVS [30] [LoAR 28 Nov 80], p.3 [sic]
I have not found any rulings as to whether or not “per saltire” fields
were ever used for marshalling, the way “per pale” and “quarterly”
fields were.
Regardless, however, this is not particularly good style: there is a
low contrast field with two (very) different charges, and neither is
in a standard posture/orientation. I don’t know whether this will
push it past the limit of what is registrable.
The raven is not particularly raven-like (being neither particularly
hairy nor having the distinctively shaped beak of ravens or crows
[c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 223]), and may get reblazoned at Laurel as a
generic bird.
Possible reblazon: Per saltire sable and vert, a raven volant
contourny bendwise sinister and a cup fesswise argent.
Presuming that there are no conflicts (or the style issues don’t
sandbag the submission entirely) do you need me to redraw this?
clear of: Artemas the Innkeeper (badge for Inn of the Drunken Hare,
1/92 Caid) -- Vert, in fess a rabbit’s head erased contourny and a
tankard argent.
There is a CD for changing half the field, and one for significant
changes to the charges; by Precedent there is a CD between a tankard
and a chalice, and (additionally) it is noted in the commentary for
Lasairíona inghean Ghéibheannaigh (8/07 Caid) that there
is a CD
between a goblet and a tankard. Since there *isn’t* one between a cup
and a chalice, I presume that the CD between a tankard and a chalice
would extend to between a tankard and a cup as well.
8. Giovanna Elisabetta Cellini -- Purpure, two lions in bend and four
bendlets enhanced Or.
The docs for the given name and the byname are as cited.
I don’t have de Felice, but the second name is of course also found in
the Project Gutenberg citation for the byname.
The documentation cited is mostly for central Italy, not Northern
Italy; I’m not sure whether there would be any differences for names
that late. However, since the submitter has not asked for
authenticity, this shouldn’t be an issue.
The lions are salient (not rampant); this should probably be included
in the blazon, since the default is rampant (while there is no
difference from the point of view of conflict-checking, there *is* a
blazonable difference). I’m also not certain whether or not the
bendlets (as ordinaries) should be listed before the lions in the
blazon, since they may be co-primaries.
There is a Precedent from François’ tenure as Laurel concerning
bendlets vs. bendy and with enhanced ordinaries:
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
[sic] Conflict with Ysfael
ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and argent and
vert [sic]. Ysfael’s device
could alternately be blazoned as Vert, three bendlets
enhanced argent [sic]
and was originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael’s
registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, “Originally blazoned as
three bendlets
enhanced [sic], the blazon more closes describes the
emblazon.” When
considering Ysfael’s device under the alternate blazon of
Vert, three
bendlets enhanced argent [sic], and comparing it to
Tigernach’s submission,
there is one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come
from the change of location of the bendlets from
enhanced [sic].
Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing the
bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that, in
period,
armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct from armory
using three bendlets in their default location on the field. We
thus
should not give difference between these designs.
The Dictionary of British Arms [sic] (DBA) volume
two gives very few
coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117) [sic]. Most
of
these coats are also found belonging to the same family but with the
three
bendlets in their default position ((on pp. 114-116) [sic]: the arms
of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced] gules [sic],
Greeley, Gules, three bends
[enhanced] Or [sic], and Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules,
three bends [enhanced]
argent [sic]. For one of these families, there is
scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets
enhanced [sic] is a later version
of the coat with three bendlets [sic], rather than
a distinctly differenced,
cadenced, coat. Woodward’s A Treatise of Heraldry British
and Foreign [sic]
discusses the arms of Byron on p. 132, stating, “What appears to
have been
the original coat of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets
gules [sic], is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) [sic] i.e.
[sic] placed higher in the
shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord Byron.”
The difference between three bendlets [sic] and
three bendlets enhanced
[sic] is thus similar to the difference between crosses
bottony [sic] and crosses
crosslet [sic]. We give no difference between these
crosses because, as
discussed in the LoAR of August 2002. “It is important to recall
that the
cross bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same
charge throughout our period’s heraldry. The bottony form is found
predominantly in earlier artwork, and the cross form predominantly
in later artwork.” [sic] The evidence in DBA and Woodward suggests
that three bendlets [sic] and three
bendlets enhanced [sic] are both used to
represent the same armory throughout our period’s heraldry. Just as
the
cross crosslet became distinct from the cross bottony after our
period,
three bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after
our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradháin, 11/03 [sic],
R-Æthelmearc]
Possible reblazon: Purpure, in bend two lions salient and in chief
four bendlets Or.
Possible reblazon: Purpure, {in chief} four bendlets enhanced and two
lions salient in bend Or.
no conflicts found
9. Hildegardis quae et Berthegundis -- Per chevron inverted sable and
Or, in chief a bee tergiant Or.
The lower half of the field isn’t “Or”, it’s “checky Or and sable”
(and there may be too many pieces in the checky part. Additionally,
the line of division is too high and too shallow. I’m also not
certain (given the way the bee’s eyes are drawn) that this is in fact
tergiant (it looks more like it should be blazoned as “displayed”).
Possible reblazon: Per chevron inverted sable and checky Or and sable,
in chief a bee tergiant {displayed?} Or.
I would have asked whether you need me to redraw this, but it may not
be an issue.
possible conflict: Elizabeth Braidwood (badge, 11/98 An Tir) --
(Fieldless) A bee Or.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, but there probably is not one
for position or posture.
possible conflict: Rhydderich Hael, Barony of the (badge, 5/04
Æthelmearc) -- Per pale vert and sable, a bee Or.
There is a CD for the changes to the field, but there is probably not
a CD for position on the field -- there is a forced change due to
tincture.
10. Sibilla Griffyn (new alternate name Ogawa Inume)
The Solveig docs for the name is incomplete. The cite for <Ogawa>
lists the name as a surname meaning “brook”; one must look elsewhere
[pp. 90 and 91, in the “Thematic Dictionary -- Semantic Index”] to see
where the listed meanings of the specific kanji can be found; the
meanings of the kanji forming the name can be found on pp. 102 and 150
(under the headers <ko/o/wo> “Small”, and <kawa> “River”,
respectively).
Likewise, <Inume>, which is listed in the Thematic Dictionary as
a
female name under the header “Dog” (as cited), has (for the later
date) the added meaning “[Woman]”. Checking in the Semantic Index
(p.92) for “Woman” sends one to pp. 198-99; while <Inume> itself
is
not found, the kanji headers for “Woman” for the differently dated
spellings/writings cited for <Inume> under “Dog” suggest that the
earlier (Nara period) kanji form for <me> is “an honourific [sic]
suffix” while the latter kanji form of <me> is a descriptive “one
of
the characters commonly found at the end of women’s name”.
The Effingham docs for the family name can be found at [URL:
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/miscellany/names.html].
Bibliography:
Black, George F. TheSurnamesofScotland:TheirOrigin,Meaning,andHistory.
Edinburgh: Birlinn Ltd., 1999, 2004 [copyright: The New York Public
Library, 1946].
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme [Bruce Miller] and Akagawa Yoshio
[Kevin Munday]. APictorialDictionaryofHeraldryAsUsedinTheSocietyforCreativeAnachronism,
2nd Ed., 1992.