Laurel LoPaD dated 2017-10-05
To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from Emma Laurel, Alys Pelican, and Cormac Wreath, greetings.
This letter contains the issues raised in the July 2017 LoAR for CoA discussion. The text in this letter is copied verbatim from that LoAR; it is provided here for convenience. As with a October LoI, these matters are currently scheduled for the Pelican and Wreath meetings in January 2018. Original commentary, responses, and rebuttals to commentary must be entered into OSCAR no later than Sunday, December 31, 2017.
1: Fálka Þórleifsdóttir - New Name
Submitter desires a feminine name.
No evidence could be found of Fálka as a female given name in a language compatible with her Old Norse byname. However, Fálki is an attested Old Norse male given name. This name is pended for additional research to determine whether the male Fálki could be feminized and what the feminized form would be.
This was item 7 on the Atlantia letter of April 30, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=74614)
2: Gráinne Shionnach - New Device
OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in November of 2014, via Æthelmearc.
Azure, a fox passant contourny regardant Or, in chief an arrow fesswise argent transfixing an increscent Or
This device includes a crescent surmounting/transfixing a secondary arrow in chief. SENA Appendix I requires that overall charges surmount the primary charge and nothing in SENA allows for charges surmounting secondary charges. This is pended to allow commentary on whether this pattern generally and/or this motif specifically should be allowed. Specifically, we'd like commenters to research whether such motifs are found in period heraldry.
This was item 7 on the AEthelmearc letter of April 17, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=74669)
3: Liam Alban of Oxley - New Device
OSCAR finds the name on the Lochac LoI of April 26, 2017 as submitted.
This device is pended for discussion about how to properly blazon the label. In this design, the label is the primary charge. Under current precedent, labels are in chief and throughout by default; like the chief, its placement is an intrinsic part of the charge, and it functions as a peripheral non-ordinary. If the submitter wishes to indicate that he is the heir to Wintherus Alban, the label would likely overlie the chief and crosses, and extend substantially into the field. However, this would run afoul of SENA Appendix I, which requires overall charges to surmount the primary charge; with no primary charge, this would be impossible.
This was item 11 on the Lochac letter of April 26, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=75004)
4: Marcus de Grae - New Device
OSCAR finds the name on the Atenveldt LoI of March 25, 2017 as submitted.
Per bend sinister sable and vert, a phoenix and in chief an arrow fesswise surmounted by a crescent Or
This device includes a crescent surmounting a secondary arrow in chief. SENA Appendix I requires that overall charges surmount the primary charge and nothing in SENA allows for charges surmounting secondary charges. This is pended to allow commentary on whether this pattern generally and/or this motif specifically should be allowed. Specifically, we'd like commenters to research whether such motifs are found in period heraldry.
This was item 11 on the Atenveldt letter of April 26, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=74810)
5: On "displayed" and "affronty" - New Other
OSCAR is unable to find the name (On "displayed") , either registered or submitted.
In period, the term displayed was primarily used as a posture for birds (especially eagles) with their bodies facing the viewer and legs and wings splayed to either side. It is also used for wings when describing their placement relative to the winged charge. Over the years, usage of displayed in SCA blazonry has come to be applied to winged quadrupeds as a shorthand for statant erect affronty, wings displayed with the forelimbs placed just above the wings for ease of recognition.
The most common application of this term for quadrupeds is dragons, and its use is a step from period practice. However, other postures of winged quadrupeds affronty, when explicitly blazoned (e.g. sejant affronty, wings displayed), do not get called out as a step from period practice.
There are a couple of reasons quadrupeds "displayed" might be a step from period practice. The first is an extension of the ruling about eagles being the only birds displayed in period. However, as cockatrices, frauenadlers, and other bipedal winged creatures were seen displayed in period armory, this might have been an improper extension of the ruling.
The second possibility is that affronty postures for quadrupeds are not often seen in period heraldry, and application of wings to an already rare posture becomes improbable for period armorial design. As far as I know, no one has done a thorough search of period rolls to catalog affronty quadrupeds, so this might be possible.
In the interest of determining whether a winged quadruped statant erect affronty, wings displayed, should remain a step from period practice, we ask the College to provide examples of quadrupeds affronty from rolls of arms or other armorial displays that we consider to be "core heraldry." i.e. Anglo-Norman heraldry prior to 1485. Armorial examples outside of this window are also welcome, but will be given less consideration.
6: On "dormant" - New Other
OSCAR is unable to find the name, either registered or submitted.
The posture of dormant is frequently described by heralds as "meatloafant," because it is notoriously difficult to recognize the type of creature by its silhouette. With legs pulled beneath the body, tail frequently lowered or wrapped, and head down, the outline of the creature becomes an amorphous blob, with defining features largely lacking.
Dormant is found in period heraldic tracts as a theoretical posture (Legh's Accedens of Armory, 1576, fol.44, attributes Azure, a lion dormant Or to the Tribe of Judah), but one that is not found in actual armory prior to the 17th century. A variation on couchant, it's best described as "couchant, head lowered to the forepaws." We generally allow things from period heraldic tracts.
Submitters frequently struggle to depict their charge in this posture while maintaining its identifiability, and submissions are frequently returned for redraw because of this. We ask for commentary from the College of Arms about how to best serve submitters who seek to have a sleeping critter on their arms, so that they can avoid the disappointment and frustration of a return.
Pray know that I remain,
Emma de Fetherstan
Laurel Queen of Arms