COMMENTARY LETTER OF THE HERALDS OF MYRKFAELINN
submitted by:
Lord Bertran de Mellegwenn, Pursuivant, Adeliza de Savininco, and
Ruaidhri MacRaith O’Griobtha, Deputy Pursuivant and Reporter

Comments on Aethelmearc Internal Letter of Intent #AE 46, November 1, 2000 CE/AS XXXV:

The primary concern we have is that the placement of bezants on a lozenge is in conflict with RfS XI.4. It was noted that there is precedent for this, but one of our number later added the following written comment:

"From the 2/95 LoAR: Mary Black Axe. Device. Gules, on a heart argent two axes in saltire inverted blades to center sable.

"As a number of commenters noted, RfS XI.4. disallows having more than one charge on a shape which was used for the display of armory. As a heart was such a shape, the presence of two axes means we have to return this design."

She also noted that "while the conjoined roundels could conceivably be blazoned as a spark, the Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry states that sparks were used only in semy, never as single charges."

Other than that, we felt that the submission was in good order.

It was noted that there were several close devices, but this submission seemed fine.

This submission seemed fine, although we felt that it would be better if this device was blazoned "Purpure, on a bend argent, three decrescents palewise gules."

The device seemed fine. Our only question concerned the period of the submitter’s persona. This name would have to be for a late period persona (16th century), given the use of the "th" and the fact that the spelling given in MacLysaght is a later Anglicized transformation of the name.

The only point of debate in our group concerned the placement of the charge in the field to create a CD. One commenter notes that "The question is whether the pear in the registered device of Hector aus Pier, "Per chevron throughout azure and Or, in base a pear vert" is far enough to base that the device under consideration gets a CD for change of arrangement." We agreed that we think there is one CD for changing the field (from "Per chevron throughout azure and Or" to "Or") and possibly a second for moving the pear out of base.

Also, as one commenter pointed out in a written response, it should be reiterated "that this is not a forced move (one required by or only permitted by changes to the field; see RfS X.4.g) Christofano could have put his pear in base and Hector could have registered a central pear."

This submission seemed fine.

This submission seemed fine.

There was concern voiced by one commenter that the surname as formed may not be appropriate, given that it basically takes a first name and sticks "O’" in front of it. The concern was that this may not be the proper spelling given that the spelling of names often changed when used in this manner. It might be prudent to conduct more research on this and consult a book of surnames. Also there was concern about the particular combination of names and whether it was appropriate.

Regarding the device, there is a close match with the device of Tamsin Barker "Sable, on a bend argent, between two lions rampant Or, three Lacy knots palewise purpure," but we agreed that sufficient CD appears to exist.

All commenters expressed reservations about the combination of these names in this form, given the lack of stated cultural or period affiliation and the citation of Shakespeare as a historical source. One commenter noted that the name does appear in MacLysaght.

Regarding the device, we suggest that the blazon be adjusted to read "Quarterly argent and azure, five crosses fleury in saltire countercharged" to clarify the positioning of the charges.

No direct conflict was found, although several other devices with five crosses in the same arrangement are reminiscent of this design. Other than that, the commenters felt that the submission was fine.

This submission seemed fine.

This submission seemed fine.

This submission seemed fine.

Our only comment here was to ask whether the name of the place was the proper period spelling.

There was some discussion among us about the use of four-leaf clovers. Two of the commenters felt that the blazon should be changed to "four-leaf shamrock" since "clover" is not used in blazon terminology and that is this way it might be acceptable for period use. The third commenter was concerned about the use of a four-leaf shamrock; the common use of "shamrock" in Irish heraldry and heraldry in general is basically as a trefoil design; this commenter was unable to find any period use of a quatrefoil as a "shamrock" within his limited resources, and feels that it should either be blazoned as a quatrefoil vert or the emblazon changed to reflect period usage of "shamrock." Also, the commenters felt that the blazon would read better if written as "Azure, four horseshoes inverted in bend between two four-leaf shamrocks, a bordure Or."

There was no problem with the name, but there was some discussion about whether griffins’ heads could be "proper," since they are monsters and not beasts. One commenter added the following written response:

"Re griffins proper, this one is more an implied example. The relevant section, from the 3/94 LoAR is:

"Though blazoned in the LoI as sable, the monster on the large emblazon forms was quite clearly drawn as brown. As we could not reblazon this as a "brown griffin proper," we are forced to return this.’

From the LoAR of 4/96:

"Nor does a mythological creature such as a sagittary fall under the 'natural critters brown proper' precedent."

That precedent is from the cover letter of 10/95 and states:

PRECEDENT: Henceforward, and more in line with period heraldic practice, animals which are normally brown may be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper).’"

Given the conflict in their presentation, perhaps they are supposed to be eagles’ heads?

This submission seemed fine.