EASTERN RESULTS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2020 LoAR (FINAL HERALDIC DECISIONS)
(These are the FINAL Society-level decisions on submissions from the East, reflecting what has actually been registered or returned. – Mistress Alys Mackyntoich, Heraldry Editor)
The Society College of Arms runs on monthly cycles and letters. Each month, the College processes name and armory submissions from all of the Kingdoms. Final decisions on submissions are made at the monthly meetings of the Pelican Queen of Arms (names) and the Wreath King of Arms (armory). Pelican and Wreath then write up their decisions in a Letter of Acceptances and Return (LoAR). After review and proofreading, LoARs generally are released two months after the meeting where the decisions are made.
An “acceptance” indicates that the item(s) listed are now registered with the Society. A “return” indicates that the item is returned to the submitter for additional work. Most items are registered without comments. Sometimes, the LoAR will address specific issues about the name or armory or will praise the submitter/herald on putting together a very nice historically accurate item.
The following results are from the September 2020 Wreath and Pelican meetings.
EAST acceptances
Áine inghean Culain. Device. Vert, a serpent nowed and on a chief argent three roses sable.
Amée le Mort. Name and device. Argent, a lily purpure and on a chief gules three needles palewise argent.
This name combines a French given name and an English byname, an acceptable lingual mix per SENA Appendix C.
Carrick Mac Seáin. Device. Per bend argent and azure, on a heart gules five lozenges three and two argent.
Cynric the Dadelar. Name and device. Per bend gules and sable, five otters courant in annulo Or.
There is a step from period practice for the use of charges in annulo not in their default orientation.
Eyvindr Bjarnylr. Name and device. Or, in pale a demi-sun issuant from chief gules and a brown horse rampant proper.
The submitter requested authenticity for the Age of Birka, which existed from 760-959 AD. This name does not meet this request. Both name elements were documented as being from Iceland, not Sweden, and the byname can only be documented to 1001 AD.
Nice device!
Eyvindr Bjarnylr. Badge. (Fieldless) On a sun gules a daisy Or.
Hesychia of Ravensbridge. Name and device. Per bend azure and vert, a wheel maintaining in chief a raven rising argent.
Ravensbridge is the registered name of an SCA branch.
Artist’s note: Please ensure that the inclusion of internal detail does not itself impede the identifiability of the raven.
Ido Planchet. Device. Gules, a cockatrice argent maintaining a pen Or, a chief rayonny argent.
This device was pended for redraw on the April 2020 LoAR.
Lavinia du Bois. Badge. Argent, on a panache of peacock feathers proper eyed gules a camel statant Or, in base a crescent azure.
While we have used the term panache in order names using the pattern of being named after heraldic charges, this is the first instance of the charge used in SCA armory.
A panache is a tuft or plume of feathers, especially as a headdress or on a helm, and may be found, charged and uncharged, in crests found in Wappen der zu Regensburg zur Reichsversammlung (1594, https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00011882/image_89), the Ortenburger Wappenbuch (1466-1473, https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001755/image_128 and https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001755/image_129), as well as Wappenbuch (1540, https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001649/image_28). We allow items only attested in crests to be used as heraldic charges: “The bassinet is shown containing a swaddled infant, as in the crest of the Earls of Derby, mid-15th C.” [E{w’}a of Coppertree, June 2019, A-Æthelmearc].
A panache is granted a DC against a single feather. Given the variety of ways multiple feathers may be arranged, we decline to rule at this time regarding conflict against multiple feathers or fans.
Lisa of An Dubhaigeainn. Badge. Argent, a rhinoceros statant to sinister purpure.
This badge is clear of the device of Aaron de Hameldene, Argent, a hippopotamus statant contourny azure. There is a DC for tincture, and another for the difference between this rhinoceros and the hippopotamus depicted in Aaron’s armory.
Madrun Chwith. Name.
Magnus Morte. Device. Azure, a sloth rampant guardant and on a chief argent a rapier azure.
The sloth was illustrated by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés (1478-1557), facsimile to be found on p233 of Fernández de Oviedo’s Chronicle of America: A New History for a New World.
The use of a sloth, as a New World animal, is a step from period practice.
Muirenn ingen uí Dáire. Name and device. Vert, a stag’s head erased affronty argent attired Or, between its attires a crescent pendant argent.
Ravensbridge, Riding of. Badge. Argent, in pale a raven displayed sable and a bridge of three spans azure.
There is no longer a step from period practice for the use of a bird displayed other than an eagle. For details, see this month’s Cover Letter.
Artist’s note: Include the masonry details used in submission of the branch arms to improve identifiability of the bridge.
Rwaun Osbern. Name and device. Azure, in saltire two spears surmounted by a bear’s head cabossed argent.
EAST returns
John fitz Thomas. Device. Per pale gules and azure, three swords Or each surmounted by an open book argent bound Or.
This device was pended in April 2020 to discuss whether this pattern of multiple charges each surmounting three identical primary charges is found in period. It is returned for lack of documentation of this arrangement of the charge groups, which is not found in SENA Appendix J.
Existing precedent regarding multiple overall charges, set in May 2013 and reinforced August 2017, states:
Taran mac Tarl’a. Device. Vert, a tree blasted Or within and conjoined to a decrescent, overall five lozenges ployé in bend sinister argent. This device is returned for not being reliably blazonable, a violation of SENA A1C and A3F5, both of which require an emblazon to be describable in heraldic terms. As we have no evidence of multiple overall charges in period armory, this design is difficult to describe. Three of the lozenges are entirely on the field, one partially overlaps the tree, and one partially overlaps the crescent. This is non-period style in general.
Similarly, the August 2017 return of the device of Alrikr Ivarsson, Vert, four barrulets and overall three musical notes Or, quoted the text above, stating “This device is returned for having multiple overall charges.”
However, in each of these cases, the arrangement of the overall charges is fundamentally different: the overall charges have no specific positional relationship to the primary charge group they overlay. In the present case, the books are paired one-to-one with the swords and, unlike Taran’s device, are well-blazonable. As such, neither Taran nor Alrikr are close matches to the present case.
But, before the question of applying either Taran or Alrikr can be asked, it is the matter of SENA Appendix J which must be considered: This design — a primary charge group, no secondary charges, with an overall charge surmounting each primary charge — is not amoung those described in Appendix J and must, therefore, be individually documented.
To that end, commenters researched and discussed various examples of multiple overall charges including:
- Sable, a fess gules surmounted by an increscent and a decrescent argent, from Wappen besonders von deutschen Geschlechtern, 1475-1560 (München, BSB, cod. icon. 309), f.17r
- Argent, a lion [azure?] crowned Or, overall two bars gules, from Wappen deutscher Geschlechter, 15th C. (München, BSB Cod.icon. 311), f.56v
- Argent, a roundel azure surmounted by five [towers?] Or, from Grünenberg Armorial, 1480s (Berlin, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, VIII. HA II, Nr. 21.), p.10
- Gules, three [flowers?] Or slipped and leaved vert, each surmounted by an escroll argent, from Insignia Veneta, Mantuana, Bononiensia, Anconitana, Urbinatia, Perugiensia, 1550-1555 (München, BSB Cod.icon. 274) f.12r
Of these it is the last — the arms of Batagia — which matches the submitted device. It presents the only case with multiple primary charges each of which is interacting with another charge (the other armory present single primary charges with multiple overall charges).
Unfortunately, the escrolls in Batagia are decorative, and omitted in the emblazons found in Arme delle Familie Veneziane per ordine Alfabetico, 15th C Italian (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg.lat.1468), f. 3v; and in Doges and families of Venice, c 1553-1554 Italian (New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, MS 736) f. 20v and f. 109r. Thus, the sole example we can find from period does not truly support the submitter’s design.
Lacking support of the overall design, this submission must be returned.
This was item 15 on the East letter of January 31, 2020.
Kellenin de Lanwinnauch. Badge. Quarterly vert and ermine, a coney rampant maintaining a labrys argent.
This item is returned for conflict with the device of Brian mac Griogair mhic Eoin, Per bend sinister vert and sable, a hare salient maintaining an axe argent, with only one DC for changing the field, and no DCs for the identical primary and the maintained secondary charges.
The submitter should make sure that the coney’s defining features are identifiable. Consider the examples of SENA A3B1, which discusses the standards for contrast between charges and the fields they are on: “For example, Lozengy vert and Or, a chief Or may be registered, but the vert portions of the field must touch the chief to maintain identifiability. Vair, a griffin argent cannot be registered, because the complex outline of the griffin will be obscured by the portions of white vair bells that touch the griffin. Argent, a fox proper may be registerable, even though the identifying characteristic of the white-tipped tail is against a white field, but the depiction must retain identifiability.”
Margaret Elizabeth Beaufort. Name.
This name was submitted to Kingdom as Margaret Beaufort. To avoid an issue with possible presumption against the historical Margaret Beaufort, the submitter requested the second given name Elizabeth be added. Unfortunately for the submitter, this version has a relationship conflict with the registered Elizabeth Beaufort [A-Atlantia, April 1981]. In this case, the submitter appears to be claiming to be the daughter of Elizabeth, and this name must be returned per SENA PN3D.