Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find commentary on #Æ46 (it gets a bit extensive occasionally). I didn't do conflict checking because I'd rather get the discussion out in a timely manner.
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
mka Ruth Morrisson
RMorrisson@aol.com
Name docs are as cited.
This device submission is illegal due to the rule about presumption (XI.4), since there is more than one charge on the lozenge.
I'm afraid that I don't have time to conflict these, though. Cadell will have to consult with Anna and then conflict check anything they come up with between the two of them.
I couldn't find this registered, any I did a name pattern search in all four on-line Armorials.
OC & M (p. 33) calls Brandubh "A relatively common name in early Ireland."
This is a header form, but a modern spelling.
OC & M (pp. 76-7), under the header "DONNGAL: DONNGHAL" gives "O' Donnghaile" as a modern surname derived from the given name, which is found "in early medieval Ireland."
I think that the chapé should come down farther and be a bit less, well, fat (c.f., Woodward, Plate VI, fig. 10), although the PIC-DIC (fig. 102) shows chapé-ployé as the emblazoned form -- hey, Bruce is known to have occasionally drawn stuff wrong before! :-) :-)
BTW -- it may need to be reblazoned as Per pale argent and sable, chapé-ployé counterchanged [i.e., with the hyphen].
Reblazon: Purpure, on a bend argent, three decrescents palewise gules.
Name is already registered (Feb. 2000, AEthelmearc) !? Is this the same person or not? If so, does she know her name passed?
Where is the mini? This is now twice in a row and is completely unacceptable. If the herald of record did not provide the proper paperwork, she is not doing her job correctly. If there is no emblazon at all, why wasn't I informed with sufficient notice, so I could draw one up? We can't tell if the emblazon is correct, if the otter actually looks like one, etc.
Reblazon: Per fess wavy azure and vert, in pale an otter passant and a pen bend sinister wise argent.
There is one point against the called conflict for fielded to fieldless; I'm not sure whether or not you get a second point for the position of the pear. The pear in Hector's armory is not a forced position change; as a (potentially) evenly tinctured field, the pear *could* be centered, and not necessarily pushed into the base of the field. This should probably sent on up to Laurel for a visual check, though, since Hector's *is* "per chevron throughout" and not just "per chevron".
Reblazon: Pean, on a bend sinister Or, a hurst of three trees palewise sable.
Both the Withycombe and Reaney & Wilson cites are as given.
OC & M docs are as cited.
Complexity count is only 7. Because they are estoiles of 8, instead of the usual 6, these can be construed as being in the standard orientation, and not palewise.
A better cite for the given name is Withycombe (p. 103), under the header form "Emily, Emilia": "Boccaccio's use of Emilia [sic] for the heroine of his Teseide [sic] helped to bring the name into use in the later Middle Ages...."
Do people still use Hanks and Hodges as a source?! Reaney and Wilson (p. 293) give, under the header form "Madden": "Tathige O Madan 1264 Dublin. Ir O' Madáin 'descendant of Madadhán, a diminutive of madadh 'dog'."
This is not necessarily the default arrangement for five charges: the arrangement should be specified.
Though there was some discussion about whether there was thin-line counterchanging, I think it's okay. The center cross seems smaller, but it appears to be merely an optical illusion.
I checked the terminology; either "fleury" or "flory" is correct, according to Brooke-Little (p. 100), and "fleuretty" is also used for crosses. Parker (p. 164) says:
"...the nomencla-[sic] ture both of English and French heralds appears to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. The term most frequently employed is a cross fleury [sic], and this is written also flory, floretty, and fleuronny, [sic] while the modern French he-[sic] alds give us fleurée, fleuronnée, florencé (or fleuroncée), [sic] and fleur-de-lisée [sic]...."
The PIC-DIC (fig. 177) shows a "'cross fleury' (or 'flory') and says that there is no heraldic difference between it and a "cross fleuretty" (fig. 178).
Woodward (pp. 157- 8) says:
"There is often some confusion between the Cross Patonce [sic] and THE CROSS FLORY [sic] or FLEURY [sic]. The distinction is supposed to consist in this; that, while the arms of the cross patonce [sic] gradually expand, those of the cross flory [sic] are of equal width very nearly to the end. But I agree with NISBET [sic]and GIBBON [sic] in thinking the true cross flory [sic] to be one of which the end terminates in fleurs-[p. 158] de-lis...."The Cross fleuretté or flurty, or fleur-de-lisée (fig. 57) [sic], is again often confounded with the preceding one. But correctly drawn it should be a plain cross couped having a demi-fleur-de-lis [sic] attached to the extremity of each arm; it is represented in Plate XIV., fig. 10 [sic], the arms of PEREIRA [sic]. This is known abroad as the Cross of Cala-[sic] trava [sic] from the Cross [sic] which appears in the arms of that famous Spanish Order. (The badge of the Order was different in shape, being more like the cross flory [sic].) The Cross of Calatrava [sic] figures in many important Spanish coats, and is often drawn and blazoned voided, i.e. [sic], the body of the cross is in outline, allowing the field to be visible in the intermediate space."
Interestingly enough, the drawing that Woodward has of a cross flory (p. 164, fig. 58) shows one that is *not* equal-armed (i.e., what the PIC-DIC, fig. 166 calls a "cross of Cleves" or a "Latin cross flory"); neither Parker, Brooke-Little nor Woodward mention a "cross of Cleves", BTW. It is apparent that this submission need to be checked against all of the above types of crosses. [It also seems apparent, as a sidebar issue, that the College's idea of a cross of Calatrava (i.e., as shown in the PIC-DIC, fig. 159) may be radically wrong, but that may not need to be addressed here).
I think this rates as nice armory!
Reblazon: Quarterly argent and azure, five crosses fleury in saltire counterchanged.
The angle of chevron should be more acute.
This is very poor style (*especially* after the previous item on this letter -- and you can quote me).
Docs seem plausible. I think there should not be confusion with "Hartshorndale" in the East Kingdom, though similar-sounding names. The uncolored mini is reminiscent of the arms of the Shire of Rusted Woodlands, but the tincture difference make it completely clear.
The arms of the pall should be of equal width. The two upper arms are narrower than they should be (I'm making this specific comment because I don't want them to redraw it so as to make the bottom arm narrower and thus match the upper arms.)
The laurel wreath isn't -- it is two sprigs of laurel conjoined. It is too small, and poorly drawn besides.
Does the orientation of the charge need to be blazoned?
Possible reblazon: (Fieldless) A crampon palewise sable.
The Withycombe cite is as stated; however, it does not give dates for all the variant forms. IIRC, "Ian" is not a period name, but I think it is on the "SCA-compatible" list.
Reaney and Wilson (p. 82) gives "Campbell" as a header form and cites a Colin Campbell [sic] 1282.
There does not seem to be any connection (i.e., suggestions of presumption) between Urquhart Castle/Glen Mòr and any of the Campbell branches, other than the fact that both the Campbells and the Urquhart clans were supporters of Robert the Bruce. [source: Grimble (pp. 39-46; pp. 263-4)]
It's the "Wheel of Fortune" device! :-) :-)
The horseshoes are a bit thin line. This is the default orientation, i.e., open to base (cf., PIC-DIC, fig. 396).
Are these four leaf clovers or quatrefoils slipped? I don't know if you need the hyphen or not. The PIC-DIC, fig. 298b) shows a shamrock as a variant of a trefoil, so I suppose these could be considered a variant of a quatrefoil. The slipping should be blazoned, as, according to the accompanying text: "The trefoil is the only foil-flower [sic] that is shown slipped by default; the others have no slips unless specifically blazoned."
Possible reblazon: Azure, four horseshoes in bend between two four leaf clovers slipped [within] a bordure [all] Or.
Reaney and Wilson (pp. 418-19) give numerous names of which "South-" is an element. It also gives (p. 325), under the header form "Norwold", John de Norwold, 1379 and says the name is derived from "Northwold".
Not having a copy of Mills, I suspect that "Southwold" might be a better form than "Southold", since it seems to be a reasonable extrapolation.
If the blazons on the color and black and white copies don't match, this should be returned for clarification. This is bad paperwork on *somebody's* part!
The heads are, yeah, sorta, erased. Fox-Davies (p. 222) claims that "proper" for a gryphon is: "the plumage is of the brown colour [sic] of the eagle, the rest of the body being the natural colour [sic] of the lion." Since I'm unsure exactly what is meant by "plumage" (i.e., does it mean the head and wings, or just the wings), and since neither Parker, Woodward nor the PIC-DIC mention anything of the sort, I'm loathe to agree to the tincture, or to rely on Fox-Davies as a really credible source. Or a chevron between three gryphons' heads sable would be SO much nicer armory, and even if the heads were some other tincture (gules, azure, etc.) it would be better than brown.
Docs are as cited; please note that there may be some temporal incongruity, as the given name is listed as dating from before the 4th century, while the byname is 7th. I know little enough about this time period and the naming practices therein, so I can't tell if "Verica" would still be in use three-plus centuries later.
Nice name! With a name like this, why would the submitter want anything else? (Tell Cadell he can quote me to the submitter.)