Feast of St. Agnes
21 January, AS XXXVII

Greetings from Myfanwy!
Herein pray find commentary on Æ LoI #64. Sorry that it's late, and that there's no conflict checking this time. The last several weeks have been a serious attack of real life, including having to drive to NJ last week for a funeral (and then be back in Pgh in time for my Thursday night class). So this month it's only double checking of name docs where possible, and doing general commentary. Hopefully by the next LoI I will have had gotten more of a handle on things.

Remaining your servant and the Society's,
Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
mka Ruth Morrisson
RMorrisson@aol.com

Dated forms of "Adrian" in Withycombe (p. 5, s.n. Adrian) include ADRIANUS [sic], dated to 1189-1205 and ADRIEN [sic], dated to the 13th century.

I don't have Black. Reaney & Wilson (p. 292) gives "MacLachlan" as a header form, calling it a variant of "Lachlan". Under the header form "Lachlan" (p. 269), citations include: Lohlan [sic], dated to 1158-64; Eugene filius Loghlan [sic], dated to 1296; Reginald son of Lauchlan [sic], dated to 1327; and Adam Lachlane [sic], dated to 1417. All of the citations appear to be from Black.

The bordure is a bit thin but is probably acceptable.

The dragon is not quite as drawn in the PIC-DIC (fig. 249) but I would call it an acceptable depiction. I do wonder about the blazon, however: is "erect" the correct term for this posture? I might call it "salient", as the back feet are down and together.

Possible reblazon: Per pale sable and argent, an oriental dragon salient, a bordure dovetailed counterchanged.

IIRC, this is related to the youth martial program.

The Withycombe docs for "Benedict" are as cited (p. 46, s. n. Benedict); it should be noted that the submitted spelling, which is the header form, is dated to the same time.

The Reaney & Wilson docs are not quite as cited. The header form (p. 166) is "Fergus", although the citation "is" as given. O'C&M (pp. 97-8, s. n. Fergus) gives Fearghus as a secondary header form; I believe that names given after a colon in the header are post 1200 forms -- I don't know whether the 'h' changes things. Withycombe (p. 118, s. n. Fergus) says: "Mainly Scottish and Irish but occasionally used in the North [sic] of England, probably after Feargus [sic] O'Connor, the Chartist leader."

Reaney and Wilson (p. 304, s. n. Mead) gives John Atemede [sic], dated to 1248. Numerous examples of the submitted spelling "atte" can be found: (p. 18, s. n. Athol) -- Robert atte Hole [sic], dated to 1296; (ib., s. n. Athorn -- William atte Horne [sic], dated to 1332; (ib., s.n. Atkey) -- William atte Keye [sic], dated to 1370; (ib., s. n. Atlay) -- Robert Atte lee [sic], dated to 1275; (ib., s. n. Atlow) -- John Attelowe [sic], dated to 1332; and (ib., s. n. Attack) -- Geoffrey atte Ock [sic], dated to 1296.

Withycombe (p. 107) gives "Ethan" as a header form, saying: "The name occurs in I Kings iv. 31 [sic] and in the title of Psalm 89." However, there are not any period dated citations.

Reaney & Wilson (p. 427, s. n. Steward) quotes Black as finding a c1370-88 citation for Stewart; there is a reiteration that the name is not reserved to the Scottish royal line:

"Both in Scotland and in England the term was used of a magistrate originally appointed by the king to administer crown lands forming a stewartry (1432) [sic], but there, as in England, every bishop, earl and manor had a steward, and the surname is no proof of royal descent as James VI (who retained the old spelling) [sic] emphasized when he said that all Stewarts were not 'sib' [sic] to the King."

Note that this could as easily be emblazoned with the heads covering the partition lines and still be both legal and have the identical blazon. Is this an issue?

Artist's note -- does the fretty need to be redrawn so that it crosses at the top and bottom of the chief instead of meeting? I can easily redraw it if need be.

This is non-standard heraldic style. It will probably have to be returned for a redraw, as fieldless badges can not have disjoint pieces.

Morgan and Morgan (p. 118, s. n. Gwynedd) has a fair amount to say about the name "Gwineth":

Before quoting from present-day registers it is necessary to inquire whether the very popular girl's name Gwyneth [sic] has its origin in the name Gwynedd [sic]. Gwyneth [sic] is not known as a christian name in the early period, G has no example and it does not occur in the pedigrees."

However, most of the rest of their discussion being out of period, I will merely note the dated citations:

Withycombe (p. 143) gives "Gwyneth" as a header form, but no dated citations.

Artist's note -- This is basically a duck, and will very likely be reblazoned as such. Cormorants, penguins and herons can all be considered waterfowl, as would ducks, swans, etc. Parker (pp. 211-12) says:

Ducks, (fr. canard [sic]): We find this very large family (ana- [sic] tinæ) [sic] represented in heraldry under several names. The duck [sic] proper, as also the drake [sic]. The shield-drake, or sheldrake [sic], as it is written (anas tadorna) [sic]. The wild-duck (anas boschas) [sic], with the teal (anas crecea) [sic] and the mallare [sic]. What is meant by the sea-teal [sic] is not certain. The sholarde, or shoveller (anas clyp- [sic] eata) [sic] may be distinguished by two small tufts of feathers, one on the back of the head, another on the breast.... [p. 212] The Muscovy [sic] duck (cairina moschata) [sic] and the smew (mer- [sic] gellus albellus) [sic] are found named. The white nun [sic] is another name for the smew, while the term cannet [sic] (fr. canette) [sic] seems to be an old heraldic name for a duck, which is to be re- [sic] presented drawn in profile, and is to be used when several appear in the shield.

Possible reblazon: Azure, a [duck/waterfowl] naiant Or between three bezants.

The Withycombe citation is as given (although that spelling is also dated to 1199-1313); it is also the header form.

The Reaney and Wilson citation is also as given, s.n. George.

"Leo" is a header form in Withycombe (p 193); the dated citation for the spelling is as given.

The docs for "Bertrand" are not quite as given in Withycombe. The header form (p. 49) is Bertram; Withycombe says: "The French form of the name, Bertran(d) [sic], is much less common than Bertram [sic], Bartram [sic], which occur from the end of the 12th C [sic]." There is a citation for BERTRANNUS [sic], dated to 1086. Reaney and Wilson (p. 30, s. n. Bartram) cites Henry Bertran [sic], dated to c.1155; it also says "OFr Bertran(t) [sic], OG Bertram, Bertran(d) [sic] 'bright raven'."

Reaney and Wilson (p. 40) has "Benton" as a header form; dated citations include William de Benton [sic] (the 1234 citation in the submission) and Richard Benton [sic], dated to 1450. (The 1275 citation is Simon de Beneton' [sic], which I don't think is as close as spelling, although temporally compatible with the rest of the submitted name).

The default position of a sword is palewise, point to chief. Does this need to be specified here, or is it unnecessary?

Possible reblazon: Purpure, a sword maintained by a hand and in chief three estoiles of eight points argent.

*Someone* hasn't been reading the RfS, if the submitter hasn't provided proof of legal name. Yes, Michael is easily documentable, but that's kinda missing the point. If this happens for something simple, it could just as easily happen for a really unusual name, which is the whole point of the mundane name allowance rule. Rant over.

Withycombe (pp. 218-19) gives this as a header form and dates this spelling to 1196-1215.

The Reaney and Wilson docs are as cited (p. 448).

Withycombe (p 246, s. n. Phoebe) says:

"the name came into use in England after the Reforma-[sic] tion; the earliest example noted is in 1568. Phebe [sic] or Phoebe [sic] was fairly common in the 17th C [sic], and has remained in use until the present day."

Withycombe (pp. 267-68, s. n. Sibyl) gives various dated forms (although not this specific one): the closest to the submitted spelling are: SYBYLE [sic] and SYBBE [sic] (both dated to 1440); SYBILL [sic] (dated to 1455); and SYBELL [sic] (dated to 1533).

Reaney and Wilson (p. 224, s.n. Headley) cites Stephen de Hedleye [sic], dated to 1327, and William Headley [sic], dated to 1672.

Since her armory was on the previous LoI, I presume that it has been pended until a decision is made on the name, so that they can be sent up to Laurel at the same time.

The O'C&M docs for "Seamus" are as given (p. 163); I don't know whether the accent makes a difference or not.

The O'C&M docs for "Maolain" are more or less as given (p. 131); "Maolán" is a secondary header form, after the colon; while the submitted spelling is not documented, it says: "From it derives the modern surname, O' Maoláin (O Mullan, Mullins) [sic]."

This is very poorly drawn: this doesn't look remotely like a bull (horns might have helped); the chief is too high up on the field and should be drawn with a straight line (ruler anyone?); and the escallops should be uniform in size. I would be happy to redraw this. The escallops are indeed inverted (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 264).

The complexity count is 7 (four tinctures, three types of charges).

The submitted form of the given name is the header form in Withycombe (p. 289). While the documentation is as given, it also says: "Viola [sic], however, also occurs as a name in Gower's Confessio Amantis [sic]."

Reaney and Wilson (p. 444) gives various header forms of "Thorn-" names that means "dweller by the thorn- [description]: Thorn, Thorndike, Thornhill, Thorning; I also found (p. 221) "Haven" as a header form ("-haven" names are much harder to look up). Cameron (p. 188-89) in the discussion of OE he{-}afod [sic, or as close as I can get to the actual spelling], "head" gives Whitehaven as derived from the Scandanavian cognate ho{'}ud{-} [sic] of he{-}afod [sic]:

"... Whitehaven (Cu) [sic] 'white headland', to which haven [sic] was added. The 'white headland' has been identified by a local antiquarian with "a great rock or quarry of white hard stone" [sic], the rock being known as 'white headland'."

This seems to be a different derivation from "haven".

I don't have any better documentation for the byname. I do feel a bit twitchy, though, since "haven" sort of implies a "safe" harbor, and a harbor full of thorns doesn't sound particularly safe. I admit that this is purely subjective on my part, and it shouldn't necessarily be returned on my account. If better documentation isn't found, I recommend it be passed on up to Laurel with a request for assistance.

I'm not sure that these would be identifiable as violets. Unfortunately, neither Parker nor Woodward give emblazons of violets although Woodward (pp. 337-38) does say: "These flowers which are [p. 338] almost, if not entirely, unknown in our own Armory [sic], are not very scarce as Continental charges."

The chaussé ployé is a bit fat (c.f., PIC-DIC, fig. 104) but is probably acceptable.

Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme and Akagawa Yoshio [Kevin Munday and Bruce Miller]. _A Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry_, 2nd ed., 1992.

Cameron, Kenneth. _English Place Names_, New Revised Ed. London: B. T. Batsford, Ltd., 1997.

Morgan, T. J., and Prys Morgan. _Welsh Surnames_. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1985.

O' Corráin, Donnchadh, and Fidelma Maguire. _Irish Names_. Dublin: The Lilliput Press, 1981, 1990.

Parker, James. _A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry_. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1970.

Reaney, P. H., and R. M. Wilson. _A Dictionary of British Surnames_, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 1997.

Withycombe, E. G. _The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names_, 3rd ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; 1977, 1988.

Woodward, John, and George Burnett. _A Treatise on Heraldry: British and Foreign_. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1969.