Feast of St. Simeon Salus
1 July AS XXXVIII

Greetings from Myfanwy!

Herein pray find commentary on Æ LoI #69. Sorry it's a bit late (nothing much happened in my house the week of the "Burnout" except for stuff related to that, and then I had to spend some time recuperating after the clean-up from same -- 13 loads of laundry in one day is a bit much for anyone. Plus, I do *not* recommend trying to do conflict checking in a non-airconditioned house when the temperatures are up close to 90. At any rate, I tried to be relatively thorough, and I did not let myself slack by just dittoing previous commentary; I tried to be good and do it all myself instead of reading what other people posted for the most part (I need the practice). I figure that it's only a day late under the circumstances, and definitely in time for the Garnet meeting this weekend.

Hope to see a lot of folks this weekend at the pajama party!

Remaining your servant and the Society's,

Lady Myfanwy ferch Rhiannon
mka Ruth Morrisson
RMorrisson@aol.com
myfanwy@nauticom.net

1. Alric of the Mists (resub) -- Per bend sinister sable and purpure, a wyvern sejant Or.

While normally I would consider this to be posture to be sejant, the PIC-DIC (fig. 248, s. n. Dragon) shows an almost identical emblazon for a wyvern, calling it "statant", and giving it as the default. Parker (pp. 122-23, s. n. Cockatrice) shows a wyvern in this posture for the arms of Drake, but does not blazon the posture. Woodward (p. 292 and Pl. XXVII, fig. 8) shows the identical arms but says:

The Dragon [sic] of Foreign Heraldry correspons with the WYVERN [sic] of British Armory, having only two legs, and being usually represented with its tail nowed in a circle. The arms of DRAKE [sic] of Devonshire are blazoned, Argent [sic], a wyvern, its wings displayed, and the tail nowed gules; [sic] but these are obviously armes parlantes [sic], and the charge is the dragon of foreign armory....

Unfortunately, Woodward does not distinguish between sejant and statant for wyverns, only in regards to lions and other beasts, not for monsters(pp. 217-41).

This may change how people have done conflict checking.

Possible reblazon: Per bend sinister sable and purpure, a wyvern statant Or. MO

There is a CD for change of field. This is an old enough submission that I can't tell what the posture actually is without seeing the file, but I believe that the wings may be large enough to clear conflict with the tincture change, if the extra heads don't.

probably clear of: Richard of the Silverdawn (3/90 Ansteorra): Gyronny gules and ermine, a lion dragon erect Or.

There is a CD for change of field. I don't know if there is enough difference between a lion-dragon and a wyvern (c.f., PIC-DIC figs. 475 and 248 respectively), but the difference in posture should get the second CD.

probably clear of: Dragonmarch, Shire of (10/01 Artemisia): Quarterly sable and argent, a dragon passant within a laurel wreath Or.

There is a CD for change of field. I would give a CD between a dragon and a wyvern, even if Woodward would probably not. I'm not sure what the rule is on laurel wreaths -- IIRC, they are sort of considered "invisible" for purposes of conflict checking, but I'm sure that someone who knows the RfS or the Precedents better would happily correct me if I'm wrong.

possibly clear of: Jeanmaire Ilaria Beatrice du Domremy (5/83 Atlantia): Sable, vêtu ployé Or, semé-de-lys sable, a wyvern sejant Or. There is a CD for change of field. I believe the second CD would come from adding the semé, but since it's on less than half the field (i.e., only on the vêtu) I'm not sure.

possibly clear of: Alethia Elphinstone of Dragonhold (10/83 West): Vert, a dragon sejant, wings elevated and addorsed, maintaining in dexter forepaw a crescent Or.

There is a CD for changing the field. I believe that there may be a CD in this case between a dragon and a wyvern because of the extra legs involved, but without seeing the other emblazon I'm not sure; this would probably have to be a visual.

possibly not clear of: Percival de Toulouse (11/82 Middle): Per fess indented azure and gules, a wyvern passant Or.

There is a CD for change of field. Normally, I believe there is *not* a CD between passant and statant; if the submission is considered to be statant, as per the PIC-DIC, then I presume that "passant" in this in-stance would be the identical posture but with one leg raised.

possibly not clear of: Robert Peregrine de Marécage (8/84 East): Per pale indented azure and gules, a cockatrice sejant, wings addorsed, Or, belled and jessed proper, maintaining in dexter talon a sword palewise argent.

There is a CD for the change of field. It isn't clear from Parker or Woodward that there is a CD between a wyvern and a cockatrice: if there is, then there's no problem; if there isn't, then there will have to be a visual determination to see if the sword is significant enough to be considered a sustained charge (I would give nothing for the little fiddly bits, i.e., the belling and jessing, without seeing if they, too, were large enough to be considered significant).

I'm not sure that this is identifiable as the right type of flower. I tried to look up amaryllis flowers in a couple of 17th century gardening books I have (one being a facsimile reprint of Hortus Eystettensis, dated to 1613, and the other a reprint of Culpeper's Complete Herbal, dated to 1653) but neither one had amaryllis flowers as far as I could determine.

possibly clear of: Caid, Kingdom of (badge for The Order of the Legion of Courtesy 1/96 Caid): (Fieldless) A rose Or barbed and seeded vert.

There is a CD for fieldless vs. fieldless. I can believe that there is also a CD between a rose and an amaryllis, but the submission doesn't really look like an amaryllis, so I can't be entirely sure.

possibly clear of: Winter's Gate, Barony of (badge for the Order of the Gilded Lily 11/82 West): Sable, a lily blossom Or.

There is a CD for fieldless vs. fieldless. According to the PIC-DIC (s. n. Flower), lilies are shown in profile by default; if this is the case, then this should be clear.

I read the return commentary in the LoAR (URL: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2002/03/). While the commentary suggests that the resubmission is registerable, as quoted in the LoI, they admit that they don't know if it's documentable to as early a date as the submitter originally requested. This however, is not a call I can make, and since the LoAR indicates that the resub is a registerable form, it should not be a problem.

possibly clear of: Ferran de Montfery (11/77 ??): Argent, an escarbuncle of spears offset deasil gules.

I can't figure out what the blazon means; I have been completely unable to find a definition for "deasil" (it was only used in the registration for one other person, for blazoning a "snake involved deasil", and not since 1984

There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, and I'm going to guess that the shape is that of an entire escarbuncle, not a demi-one.

The name docs for "Drogo" from Nicolaa's article are as cited (URL: http:// members.tripod.com/nicolaa5/articles/german.html).

There may be submitted documentation for armadillos, but the submitter has an early period given name with an earlyish byname (constructed or not). Being a New World critter, I'm going to guess that evidence for European knowledge of armadillos would be really late period (i.e., post-1492), and further, that such documentation would be Spanish or Portuguese, since I'm pretty sure that they were the countries exploring what would be an armadillo's habitat. Given that, (since said documentation is not actually specified in the LoI), is it logical to assume that an armadillo would be a German heraldic charge? I know that it's probably registerable, but *should* it be? Would it have been a period heraldic charge at all, even in Spain or Portugal?

clear of conflict

As a badge, this is very nice armory. That being said, it's nicely drawn.

clear of: Mihel Louis D'Aigneaux (11/97 Meridies): Argent, a cross-crosslet fitchy gules, a chief embattled sable.

There is a CD for changing the field, and one for the type of cross (c. f. PIC-DIC, figs. 171, 175, and 180).

clear of conflict

The Withycombe docs are as given (pp. 127-28); however, this is not terribly useful for documentation purposes. Additionally, though, Withycombe says: St. Geneviève [sic], born c . 422 [sic] at Nanterre, is the patron of Paris".

Dauzat and Rostaing (p. 61, s. n. Beaucamps) gives what looks like a dated citation for the byname as a place name: "Beauchamps, [sic] cant. Loiret (Bellum Campum, [sic] 840-843)".

Artist's note: I don't think this was the original blazon, because I remember checking to see what the orientation of the rabbits was supposed to be.

Reblazon: Gules, a rose Or between three rabbits courant contourny in annulo argent.

clear of: Eoin Cerd (8/96 East): Vert, three rabbits courant in annulo conjoined by the ears argent.

There is a CD for change of field, and one for adding the rose. (I can't tell if the ears of each are conjoined to the back of the previous bunny, or conjoined in pall, but it doesn't really matter in this case.)

This is armory masquerading as a badge. Sigh. This one is not as well drawn as #7, and I wonder if it should be conflict-checked under "Per chevron Or and purpure". The donkey should be larger (at least half again, if not twice the current size).

probably clear of: Eugene Philip Boucher (badge 6/95 Atenveldt): (Fieldless) On a mountain couped purpure a wolf's head couped at the shoulder cabossed argent.

There is a CD for field vs. fieldless, and one for changing the type and tincture of the tertiary. [Because it's a fieldless badge, the couping of the mountain is sort of necessary -- could this be considered a forced change? :-) :-) ]

probably clear of: Robert of Dunharrow (10/79 West; reblazoned 1/85 West): Or, on a pile inverted vert, tipped indented, a horse counter-courant argent.

There is probably a CD for changing the type of the primary charge; there is certainly one for its tincture. I don't know for sure if there's a CD for changing the posture of the critter from passant to courant (there was some discussion last weekend during external commentary, but I was doing name stuff, and wasn't paying all that much attention to the armory discussions).

probably clear of: Robert of Dunharrow (1/85 West): Or, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base vert, snowcapped and charged with a horse courant to sinister argent.

There is a CD for changing the tincture of the mountain, and possibly one for changing the number of peaks; there may be one for adding the snow as a second tertiary. Like his old armory previously cited, I don't know if you get a full CD for the horse, since there is a tincture change but possibly not a significant posture change.

probably clear of: Sine as Monadh (9/83 West): Or, on a pile inverted throughout purpure, in pale three crescents Or.

There is probably a CD between the two primary charges, especially since the pile is throughout. There is a CD for type and number of tertiaries.

The Withycombe docs are as given (pp 186-87).

I don't have Mills. Reaney and Wilson (pp. 18-19, s. n. Attwell) gives Attewell as a subsidiary header form, and cites Gilbert Attewell [sic], dated to 1274 and Richard atte Wille [sic], dated to 1333. Additionally, Reaney and Wilson (p. 481, s. n. Wells) cites Roger Attewell' [sic] dated to 1200, and says "The singular atte, del, de la Welle [sic] is very common in medieval sources and survives in ATWELL [sic] 'dweller by a spring or stream' [sic]".

Very nicely drawn. Thanks to whoever has already posted commentary (I didn't notice who it was): they're right, the mascle is fesswise. I hadn't caught that, and I'm glad someone else did.

I checked in Matsuya and found some similar types of arrangements (i.e., something conjoined and issuing from the base of a mascle):