Laurel LoPaD dated 2018-01-26
To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from Juliana Laurel, Alys Pelican, and Cormac Wreath, greetings.
This letter contains the issues raised in the November 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 January LoI, these matters are currently scheduled for the Pelican and Wreath meetings in April 2018. Original commentary, responses, and rebuttals to commentary must be entered into OSCAR no later than Saturday, March 31, 2018.
1: Bronzehelm, Barony of - New Order Name
OSCAR is unable to find the name, either registered or submitted.
Order of the Rivet of Bronzehelm
Past precedent had disallowed the use of rivets as heraldic charges without additional evidence that they were known and used in period:
[S]ince research provided no examples of rivets in heraldry, any submitter wishing to register this charge after the March 2015 Laurel meeting must provide documentation that it is, in fact, a period charge or a period artefact [sic] suitable for a constructed charge. [Unser Hafen, Barony of, LoAR of Aug 2014]
At the Pelican decision meeting, Ursula Palimpsest provided new evidence identified by Master Derian le Breton showing rivets as late medieval artifacts. (https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/496177 and https://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/objecttype/RIVET/broadperiod/MEDIEVAL/thumbnail/1). In addition, the Middle English Dictionary shows the word ryvet used in 1435 to identify items of the type shown in Master Derian's images.
However, being shown to be a period artifact does not automatically qualify a rivet as a heraldic charge that could be used in a heraldic title or order name. Precedent requires that, "to use an object as a heraldic charge, a standard depiction [of the object] must be documented." [Caid, Kingdom of. Heraldic title Compendium Herald, 8/2005 LoAR, R-Caid] For example, in returning the heraldic title Compendium Herald, we ruled:
The submitters argued that a compendium was a period object compatible for use as a heraldic charge. To use an object as a heraldic charge, a standard depiction must be documented. However, a compendium does not appear to have a standard form. [The LoAR cites the Oxford Museum of Scientific Instruments to show multiple forms of the artifact, and concludes] Because a compendium is not suitable for use as a heraldic charge, the name cannot be justified in a heraldic title. [Caid, Kingdom of. Heraldic title Compendium Herald, 8/2005 LoAR, R-Caid]
Bruce Batonvert pointed out that Master Derian's examples show multiple forms of fasteners, from hollow cones that could be flattened, to bar-bell-like forms with a central cylinder and flanges on either end. It is unclear whether all of these artifacts were called rivets or whether there was a standard form of rivet in period. Therefore, we are pending this name for additional research and commentary on period rivets and what constitutes a "standard depiction" sufficient to permit their use as heraldic charges.
This was item 5 on the Artemisia letter of August 31, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=78864)
2: Sasson de Sancta Victoria - New Device
OSCAR finds the name on the Æthelmearc LoI of August 25, 2017 as submitted.
Argent, a serpent glissant palewise gules vorant of a demi-man, a bordure sable
Metron Ariston asks us to consider whether the biscione, the serpent glissant palewise vorant of a demi-man, is important enough to restrict as a motif to individuals or institutions closely linked to the Visconti and Sforza Dukes of Milan. As this comment came late in commentary, we are pending this for further discussion.
Certain motifs that are only found in the arms of a single family are not registerable. This includes both motifs in royal arms/badges and motifs that do not follow our core rules, like Mortimer's Barry Or and azure, on a chief azure two pallets between two gyrons Or and overall an escutcheon argent. This is pended to allow discussion of whether this motif should be considered a charge that creates a presumptuous claim (under A6B1) or a motif that is not constructible under the core style rule (and cannot depend on non-Visconti examples).
This was item 7 on the AEthelmearc letter of August 25, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=78983)
3: Septimus Huscarlessone - New Device
OSCAR finds the name on the An Tir LoI of October 31, 2016 as submitted.
Gules, a wolf's head and a raven's head erased addorsed argent and in chief seven crosses crosslet fitchy Or
Commenters asked whether there was evidence of a secondary charge group including more than three charges in chief. Six or more charges are particularly problematic as we do not normally enumerate them, but only describe them as semy of charges. Without such evidence, this group of seven crosses in chief cannot be registered. This is pended to allow research on this question. Evidence of charge groups consisting of six or more charges arranged in a way that only covers part of a solid field, other than in orle which is solidly documented, would also be welcome.
This was item 17 on the An Tir letter of August 17, 2017. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=78749)
Pray know that I remain,
Juliana de Luna
Laurel Queen of Arms