ÆTHELMEARC
COLLEGE OF HERALDS - commentary archive
Letter of Intent #113 Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Feast of St. Mary Magdalen
22 July, AS XLIV
Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find the first part of the commentary on Æ #113. All
the
armory was conflict-checked through the February 2008 LoAR.
Hope to see a lot of yinz at Pennsic!
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
Ruth Morrisson
myfanwy@nauticom.net
1. Artán Becc (device resub) -- Quarterly sable and purpure, in
bend
two griffins argent.
The griffins are segreant (although, by Precedent, they could also be
blazoned as “rampant”). I wasn’t able to find any Precedents as to
whether or not there is a default posture for griffins (as, for
example “rampant” is the default for lions).
Possible reblazon: Quarterly sable and purpure, in bend two griffins
segreant argent.
clear of: Hywela Frech ferch Wyddel (9/85 Calontir) -- Per bend
sinister vert and vair, in bend two griffins segreant Or.
clear of: Griffin Garret (10/06 West) -- Quarterly gules and sable,
in bend two griffins Or.
In each case there is a CD for changing the field, and one for
changing the tincture of the griffins.
possibly clear of: Cynric Beyond the Mountain (6/90 East) --
Quarterly argent and sable, in bend sinister two griffins segreant
argent.
There is a CD for changing the field; there may or may not be one for
the arrangement of the charges, given that they are forced by tincture
to be on the sable parts of the field.
clear of: Helena Lyncoln of Norfolk (1/08 Æthelmearc) --
Quarterly
gules and azure, four griffins argent.
There is a CD for changes to the field, and one for the number of
griffins.
2. Bran mac Dímmáin -- Per bend gules and sable, an axe
blade to
sinister argent and a spearhead bendwise Or.
The docs for the given name are as cited; one of the citations is for
<Bran Finglaisi, episcopus & scriba [sic]>, dated to
838 (which appears to answer my initial question about whether this
was a name ever used by humans).
The docs for the other name elements are as cited.
This is not particularly good style, what with a low-contrast divided
field and two different charges, both of which are in nonstandard
orientations.
Complexity count of six (four tinctures, two
types of charges).
no conflicts found
3. Cailin mac Cainnich -- Per pale argent and gules, a wolf
reguardant tail knowed [sic] in triquetra between six lozenges
counterchanged.
The docs for all name elements are as cited.
I’m not sure that the blazon adequately describes the emblazon; I
would think that a better blazon might be “...between six lozenges
ployé, three and three, ...” (or perhaps “three, two and one”?,
or
possibly even since as currently blazoned, it would suggest that the
arrangement would look more like this:
x x x
x === x
x
Another possibility would be (even though six is a few too few, IMO)
to reblazon the lozenges as being a semy.
Additionally, while nicely drawn, I don’t think the oddly nowed tail
will count for anything (and might be considered a weirdness). This
posture, BTW is “passant reguardant” (not just “reguardant”).
There’s no herald of record listed?
Possible reblazon: Per pale argent and gules, a wolf passant
reguardant, tailed nowed in triquetra, between in chief three lozenges
ployé and in base three lozenges ployé [2 and 1]
counterchanged.
Possible reblazon: Per pale argent and gules, [all] semy of lozenges
ployé, a wolf passant reguardant, tailed nowed in triquetra,
[all]
counterchanged.
clear of: Wilfry{th} of Leedes (7/02 An Tir) -- Per pale argent and
gules a wolf rampant counterchanged.
There is a CD for change of posture, and one for addition of
secondaries.
4. Caitríona Chruinn inghean Uí Chonaill (alternate name)
Is the submitter actually changing her name, or just adding an
alternate persona name (there seems to be only the change of a single
name element between this and what has already been submitted)?
The docs for all name elements are as cited; however, in a couple of
instances there appear to be typos in the URLs, where spaces are added
-- if you click on these links, or cut and paste them without
tightening up the address you get 404 error messages!
I can’t tell whether or not there should be a patronymic marker for
<Chruinn>; normally I would have said yes, but the documentation
for
the one instance cited appears not to include it (the name is
<Cormac
Cruinn Ó Máille>).
5. Cynwyl MacDaire (exchange of device and badge)
I’m confused. First it says his old device is being retained, then it
says it’s being released. Which is it?
Does this (whichever it winds up being) count as a separate action
from swapping out the badge and old device?
6. Grimr Laeknisson
The Geirr Bassi docs for all name elements are as cited. However,
there may be a problem with the byname. Patronymics generally imply
you are the son (or daughter) of a specific person. Is there any
evidence for adding a patronymic form to a descriptive byname? If
not, does the submitter allow any changes?
7. Katerina de la Marne (new badge) -- Azure, a quatrefoil between
three horseshoes Or.
Artist’s note: I checked the PIC-DIC when I was drawing this one up at
War Practice, and this is the default for the orientation of the
horseshoes.
clear of: Celestine de Chatham (7/02 Meridies) -- Per chevron sable
and vert, a quatrefoil Or.
There is a CD for changing the field tincture, and one for adding the
secondary charges.
8. Keneth the Conqueror
The online documentation (the Gater and Wheeler citation) for the
submitted spelling of the given name is as given; the docs from Black
are also as cited (I’m not on SCA-Heralds).
The Black and the Reaney and Wilson docs for the byname are as cited.
I’m feeling very twitchy about the byname being presumptuous,
especially given that some of the documentation obviously refers to
William of Normandy (aka William the Conqueror). The other documented
names using the definite article seem (at least to me) to refer to
Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, both of whom are *certainly*
important enough to protect and they both are found in the listing of
“The Nine Worthies” (as two of the three pagan Worthies); the
Wikipedia article about the Nine Worthies [URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Worthies] says in part:
The Nine Worthies [sic] (les neuf preux) [sic] were
nine historical,
scriptural, mythological or semi-legendary figures, who, in the
Middle
Ages, were believed to personify the ideals of chivalry. They were
first described in the early fourteenth century, by Jacques de
Longuyon
in his Voeux du Paon [sic] (1312) [sic]. Neatly
divided into triads, these
men were considered to be paragons of chivalry within their
particular
tradition, be it either Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. De Longuyon’s
choices soon became a common theme in the literature and art of the
Middle Ages and earned a permanent place in the popular
conciousness....
As a group, the nine worthies represent all facets of the perfect
warrior. All, with the exception of Hector and arguably Arthur, are
conquering heroes.
In fact, nearly all the citations from the online Middle English
Dictionary given in the documentation appear to be for kings and
rulers.
The Black citations appear to be for non-royal people as a (possibly
inherited) surname; this may be a registrable late-period name but
only *without* the definite article, and the submitter allows no
changes.
9. Mór inghean Sheachnasaigh -- Vert, on a tower argent a
trefoil
vert.
The docs for the given name are as cited; additionally, it can be
found in O’Brien’s “Index of Names in Irish Annals [URL:
http://www.medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/Feminine/Mor.shtml]. In
the raw data, the submitted spelling can be found in the desired
timeframe, for the name <Mór ingen Donnchada h. Fergail>,
dated to
1242; <Mór ingen Donncaidh Uí Dubhda
ben an Giollu Muinelaigh Ui Bagoighill>, dated
to 1249; and <Mór ingen Feidhlimthe h-Ui Conchobuir> dated
to 1289. [Note that the same people are listed in the raw data with the
given
name unaccented; note also that the byname elements do not always have
accents, even when the given name does.]
The docs for the patronymic designator and the the lenition are as
cited; I don’t have MacLysaght, so I cannot attest to whether or not
the byname is a thirteenth century form (or even a thirteenth century
name). Has the submitter checked the magic “authenticity” box?
The B/W and color emblazons appear to be different drawings (?!)
rather than the same image photocopied or scanned in.
The trefoil is not particular well drawn (I mistakenly thought that it
was a quatrefoil, instead of a three-lobed charge with a stem). There
is a Precedent from François’
first tenure as Laurel, which states in part:
Please advise the submitter to draw the slip of the trefoil
thinner.
Period trefoils could have prominent slips, but these slips are so
wide
that they could almost be mistaken for another foil. This depiction
thus
blurs the ability to clearly identify the charge either as a trefoil
or as a
quatrefoil. [Gráinne inghean Chonaill uí Eachadha,
03/03, R-Outlands]
[sic]
It doesn’t help that there is an excess of detailing on the tower(s)
[should this be reblazoned as “a tower argent masoned sable”?]. Do
you need me to redraw this, both to correct the emblazon problems and
to make it as a single image?
clear of: Manfred de Outremer (badge, 9/91 East) -- (Fieldless) A
tower argent goutty de sang.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, and one for significant changes
to the tertiaries.
clear of: Carlos Juan Ramiro (badge, 12/99 Atlantia) -- (Fieldless) A
zule argent.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, and one
for adding the
tertiaries; it isn’t clear, however, whether or not there is a CD for
type.
possibly clear of: Angus Mac Taggart (badge, 9/92 Ansteorra)
-- (Fieldless) On a castle argent, a rose azure.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless; there is change of tincture of
the trefoil, but since it is poorly drawn there may not be change of
type. Note that there is, by current Precedent, not a CD between a
castle and a tower; this is from François’ second tenure as
Laurel:
[Azure, a castle triple-towered argent within a bordure Or semy of
roses gules.] [sic] This conflicts with Cathal MacLean:
Azure, a tower
argent within a bordure Or crusilly plain sable [sic]. The
only CD is for
cumulative changes to the charges on the bordure. [ED: implying none
for the number of towers on the castle.] [sic] [Alessandra de
Burgos,
LoAR 11/2004, East-R] [sic]
Additionally, there is a Precedent about the types of charges, from
François’ first tenure:
[shamrock vs. cinquefoil] [sic] The only
difference is for the change
in type of the primary charge, which is worth a CD. There is not
substantial difference between a shamrock (a type of trefoil) and a
cinquefoil, analogous to the following precedent: [A
trillium flower vs.
a rose] There is a CD for type of flower, but not the substantial
difference
required by Rule X.2. (Gwyneth MacAulay, October, 1992, pg.
29) [sic].
[Caitlin of Drogheda, 11/01, R-Trimaris]
[sic]
possibly not clear of: Joe of Rivenstar (4/94 Middle) -- (Fieldless)
On a tower argent a cross of Jerusalem vert.
There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, but given the poor drawing of
the trefoil, this may be a visual conflict; there is only change of
type of tertiary in any case, since the tower is not a simple outline
(too complex to fimbriate).
clear of: Hjalmar von Aachen (1/87 East) -- Vert , a castle argent
portalled and masoned sable, on a chief argent three oak leaves vert.
There is at least one CD for removing the charged chief, and one for
adding the tertiary. Note that there is, as previously cited, not a
CD between a castle and a tower.
clear of: Coenred æt Rauendesdale (2/07 Drachenwald) -- Vert, on
a
tower between three mullets of four points a raven sable.
There is a CD for removing the secondaries, and one for significant
changes to the tertiary.
possibly not clear of: Robert Greenheart (11/90 Meridies, for
Greenhill Keep) -- Vert, on a tower Or, a heart in chief vert.
There is a CD for tincture of the tower; there is change of type of
tertiary, and it isn’t clear whether changing position is enough
(given the location of the tertiary on the new submission). RfS
X.4.j.ii says in part::
ii. [sic] For armory that has no more than two types
of charge directly
on the field and has no overall charges, substantially changing the
type of
all of a group of charges placed entirely on an ordinary or other
suitable
charge is one clear difference. Only the new submission is required
to meet
these conditions in order to benefit from this clause. A charge is
suitable
for the purposes of this rule if (a) [sic] it is simple
enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) [sic] it is correctly drawn with an
interior substantial
enough to display easily recognizable charges.
In this instance, I don’t believe that a tower meets the first
requirement (i.e. simple enough to be voided.
10. Rastislav Mickhailovich Dneprovskii -- Or, a fox rampant
contourny gules sustaining a halbard [sic], in chief three mullets of
eight points sable.
The docs for name elements are as cited. It’s good that the submitter
does not appear to have asked for authenticity, because there is a
four hundred year span between all the name elements.
I’m not sure but what I would have called this a wolf, rather than a
fox [c.f. PIC-DIC figs. 807 and 303, respectively], given the shape of
the head: a fox’s head appears to be more triangular, with a shorter
snout.
These are not mullets of eight, which would imply that the points are
all of equal size. These are compass stars, the use of which (as per
the June 2007 Cover Letter, which is reiterated in the commentary for
Valerie of Strikkenwoode, 2/08 Middle) is one step from period
practice. They are a bit small (and poorly spaced out as well) but
this is probably acceptable as is.
This isn’t a halberd [c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 576b]; it appears, instead,
to be a battle-axe [PIC-DIC, fig. 24a]; is this really large enough to
be considered a sustained charge? I’m not convinced that it is, and
this may need to be reblazoned as “maintained”, but there is a
relevant Precedent from Daud’s second term as Laurel:
[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd]
[sic] Regarding the
"significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown noted, a charge
consisting
mostly of a long skinny handle will always have difficulty matching
the
visual weight of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges
are about
the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear
and a halberd [sic]. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for determining
sustained
(and qualifying for a CD) [sic], as opposed to maintained (and not
qualifying for a CD) [sic], charges. (Wynn of Naevehjem, 9/94 p. 9)
[sic]
Additionally, there is a Precedent from François’ first term
which
says:
[a talbot passant maintaining a cross of Calatrava]
[sic] The talbot was
originally blazoned as sustaining the cross of
Calatrava. Per the Cover
Letter to the LoAR of October 1996, "Maintained charges are small
and
do not count for difference. Sustained charges are large - large
enough
in fact that if they were not being held that they would be
considered
a co-primary, and do count for difference." In this case, while the
cross
of Calatrava is not a miniscule charge, it is not large enough to be
considered a co-primary charge. It is smaller than the talbot both
vertically and horizontally and has notably less visual weight than
the talbot. Because the SCA's only choices for held charges are to
consider them to be sustained co-primary charges, or to consider
them maintained insignificant charges, and this cross cannot be
considered a co-primary charge, it must be considered a maintained
charge. [Susannah Griffon, 12/03, [sic]
R-Calontir]
However, since Istvan is currently (as of the week of July 14th)
soliciting commentary on whether to overturn the Precedents on
maintained/sustained charges, I’m not sure what to think.
The armory was registered (via Caid). Not having access to the
original artwork, it may have to be a judgment call by Wreath to
determine whether the “maintained” charge in the new submission is on
par with the size with that of the previous registration.
The charge (whether maintained or sustained) is, BTW, *also*
contourny/reversed/to sinister.
I can’t tell whether this is (as in #10) two different images, or just
a single image that has been been badly colored in the non B/W version
(I’m guessing that it’s actually the latter, but it’s a bit hard to
tell on the sable charges).
Possible reblazon: Or, a fox rampant contourny gules maintaining a
battle-axe contourny, in chief three compass stars sable.
possibly clear of: Ana Ximenez de Hume (3/07 East) -- Or semy of
roundels purpure, a wolf rampant contourny gules.
There is at least one CD for changes to the type and number of
secondaries, as well as their arrangement (since the arrangement
change is not caused by other changes, as per RfS X.4.g).. There may
or may not be A CD for the maintained/sustained charge, nor is there
one for the primary charge.
clear of: Aaron Longbox (2/90 Middle) -- Or, a demi-pegasus rampant
to sinister and in chief three mullets sable.
There is probably X.2 between the two types of primary charges
(certainly CDs for type and tincture), and there is a CD for the
difference between mullets and compass stars, by Precedent (from
François’ first term):
[mullets vs. compass stars] [sic] ... a second CD
between the default
mullets of five points and compass stars. RfS X.4.e states that "A
charge
not used in period armory will be considered different in type if
its
shape in normal depiction is significantly different." Compass stars
are
not used in period armory and thus must be compared with mullets of
five points on visual grounds. They have sufficient visual
difference to
be given a CD. [Asad de Barcelona, 10/03,
A-Æthelmearc]
clear (but evocative) of: Beniamin Hackewode (1/08 Æthelmearc) --
Vert, a wolf rampant contourny maintaining a halberd argent, in dexter
chief a mullet Or.
Note the relative sizes of the critter and the maintained charge in
Beniamin’s registration (c.f. Æ 107, #5 for a depiction) [URL:
http://www.aeheralds.net/Letters/
AE107/iloi.html].
clear (but evocative) of: Chrystofer Kensor (2/08 Calontir) -- Azure,
a wolf rampant contourny argent maintaining in his sinister paw an
adze bendwise argent hafted Or, a base argent and in chief a ducal
coronet Or. In the commentary it says in part:
The axe was blazoned as
a Fracsiscan [sic] axe [sic]; however, it is actually
an adze [sic] (or, in French, a doloire
[sic]), not a francisque. Blazoned on
the LoI as sustained [sic], as most commenters
noted that, as the axe is not
as long as the wolf is tall, it is maintained [sic].
11. Reynard le Vavasseur -- Per chevron vert and sable, a chevron
rompu Or between two feathers and a crescent argent.
The docs for both name elements are as cited.
There was some discussion at the time this was submitted as to whether
the byname was considered (effectively) a rank, but that it was a
decision best left to higher authorities.
The complexity count is seven (four tinctures, three types of
charges); eight if you count the complex type of chevron. This just
skirts the edge of overly complex, but without quite falling over the
line. Note that in addition this does not count as simple armory,
with three different types of charges directly on the field [c.f., RFS
X.2 and the examples given for simple vs. non-simple].
This was redrawn at the consult table; the
submitter had a single,
full-color copy that (in addition) had some other artistic problems
(specifically, IIRC, with the depiction of the feathers, which were
drawn mirror-image to each other).
probably clear of: Jehane Wulfeken (1/98 Artemisia) -- Per
chevron vert and sable, a chevron rompu between two wolves heads
respectant erased and a sheaf of spears Or.
There is a CD for changing the tincture of the secondaries; there
should also be one for significant changes to their type.
clear of: Sine ni Mhoraig (reblazon of device, 9/07 East; originally
registered 3/85) -- Per chevron vert and sable, two mullets of eight
points and a tree eradicated argent.
clear of: Cilléne mac Conghalaigh (12/07 Outlands) -- Per
chevron
vert and sable, two daggers in chevron and a wolf passant reguardant
argent.
In each case there is a CD for addition of primary, and one for
significant changes to all types in the secondary charge group.
12. Vilhajálmr E{th}var{th}arson -- Azure, on a bend sinister
between
two axes bendwise blades to sinister chief Or three knives gules.
The Geirr Bassi docs for the given name are as cited.
The docs for the byname are not quite as cited. Geirr Bassi [p. 17]
says:
But note that many men’s names, most commonly those ending in ...
-ur{th}r, -var{th}r, -vi{th}r ... form a genitive in -ar [sic]
One of the names cited is <Sigur{th}r>, which makes the
patronymic
form of <Sigur{th}arson>. So the documentation is wrong, but the
construction turns out to be correct. :-)
The orientation of the axes is a bit odd (upright axes would fill the
space better), but is probably registrable.
Does this guy happen to do thrown weapons? :-)
probably clear of: Tristan of Ryddingbrooke (4/87 East) -- Azure, on
a bend sinister Or between a unicorn’s head erased and sinister facing
argent, armed and crined Or, and a tower argent, three crosses
crosslet fitchy gules.
probably clear of: Ciaran Dubh MacDonagh (5/90 East) -- Azure, on a
bend sinister Or between six crescents argent, three lozenges gules.
In each case, there is at least one CD for type and tincture of
secondaries; because the new submission is simple (with only two types
of charges directly on the field, there may also be a CD (by X.4.j.ii)
for changing the type of tertiaries: ii. [sic]
For armory that has no more than two types of charge directly
on the field and has no overall charges, substantially changing the
type of
all of a group of charges placed entirely on an ordinary or other
suitable
charge is one clear difference. Only the new submission is required
to meet
these conditions in order to benefit from this clause. A charge is
suitable
for the purposes of this rule if (a) [sic] it is simple
enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) [sic] it is correctly drawn with an
interior substantial
enough to display easily recognizable charges. probably clear of: Connor Fiddes Wood (2/01 Middle) --
Azure, on a bend sinister Or between two stags trippant argent three
crosses formy palewise gules.
There is at least one CD for significant changes to the secondaries;
there is probably also one for changing the type and orientation of
the tertiaries.
probably clear of: Richard ffaukes (1/94 Atlantia) -- Azure, on a
bend sinister between two foxes’ masks Or, three estoiles gules.
There is CD for changing the type of
secondaries, and possibly one for
their orientation. By X.4.j.ii, there should also be one for changing
the type of tertiaries, given that the new submission is simple armory.
13. William Parris (device change) -- Gules, on a pale doubly
endorsed Or three cinquefoils gules.
Ooh pretty. Lovely armory.
probably clear of: Mary Margaret of Derby (badge for Family
Trammerlaine, 10/76 ??) -- Gules, on a pale Or three batwinged lions
salient gules.
There is a CD for adding the endorses; because
the new submission is
simple armory, there is also a CD for changing the type of tertiaries,
as per X.4.j.ii: ii. [sic] For armory that has no more than two
types of charge directly
on the field and has no overall charges, substantially changing the
type of
all of a group of charges placed entirely on an ordinary or other
suitable
charge is one clear difference. Only the new submission is required
to meet
these conditions in order to benefit from this clause. A charge is
suitable
for the purposes of this rule if (a) [sic] it is simple
enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) [sic] it is correctly drawn with an
interior substantial
enough to display easily recognizable charges.
clear of: Vaclav Bily (1/95 An Tir) -- Gules, on a pale endorsed Or
three lozenges gules.
There is a CD for changing the number of endorses; because the new
submission is simple armory, there is also a CD for X.4.j.ii.
14. William Walter Armstrong
The docs for all name elements are as cited. Note that the dated
citation given for <Walter> appears to be as a byname. However,
Black
[p. 800] also gives the header form <Walterson> and gives the
Latin
genitive form <Walteri>, citing <Henry Walteri >, dated to
1391, and
<Johannes filius Walteri>, dated to 1398.
While none of the name elements are dated specifically to that the
submitter desires (has he checked the magic “authenticity” box?) , all
the name elements are dated within a century, both to each other and
to the desired timeframe.
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.