OSCAR Kingdoms: Ansteorran CoH Internal Submissions Page

[ ANSTEORRA Home | Ansteorra Heraldry | Ansteorra Submissions ]
[Æth|AnT|Arte|Aten|Atla|Avac|Calo|Drac|Eald|East|Glea|Loch|Meri|Midd|Nort|Outl|Trim]


ANSTEORRA Home
Ansteorra Heraldry
Ansteorra Submissions

Name:

Password:

Create Account

MAIL ME my password.



SEARCH:

Actively
Commenting
only:
Include LoI Text:
Include Comments:
Type:

Ansteorra ILoI dated 2016-12-08

Greetings, heralds! Here for your commentary are the current heraldic submissions from throughout Ansteorra.

Letter Comments:

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:27:06
Comments under my name represent the consensus of the NE Calontir commenting group, consisting this month of Lady Brigida von München, Purple Falcon Herald, Lady Rohese de Dinan, Shadowdale Pursuivant, and myself.

1: Enneleyn Phye Heydewolff -New Device

OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in November of 2014, via Ansteorra.

Argent, in chief sinister a cross formy gules, four wolf's teeth sable issuant from dexter bendwise.

Submitted through the Barony of Bjornsborg

Consulting herald Phelisettee d'Avignon

Device Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 21:48:28
Sequenced like the registered blazon of Thorleifr Úlfvarinsson's device, May 2012, Argent, in bend a wolf's head erased sable and three wolf's teeth issuant from sinister base gules, I think this would be:

Argent, in bend sinister a cross formy gules and four wolf's teeth bendwise issuant from dexter sable.

Unlike blazoning the cross in sinister chief, I do not believe this can conceivably incur Appendix J's stricture against "Designs with One or Two Charge Groups On the Field that We Don't Allow (barring evidence that they were used in period)"

A design with charges only "in sinister chief and in central base" and variants (like "in chief and dexter base")

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-17 01:32:51
Make that

Argent, in bend sinister a cross formy gules and four wolf's teeth inverted bendwise issuant from dexter sable.

which incurs an SFPP: http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2006/12/06-12lar.html s.n. Michael von Guttin.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:27:30
No conflicts found.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:04:54
I didn't find any conflict.


2: Gaius Artorius Germanus -Resub Device

OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in February of 2016, via Ansteorra.

Sable, a ray of the sun issuant from dexter chief between two eagles Or.

Submitted through the Shire of the Shadowlands

Consulting herald Tostig Logiosophia

This is a complete redesign of an earlier device withdrawn from http://oscar.sca.org/kingdom/kingloi.php?kingdom=8&loi=4103 (#8).

Device Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 21:51:53
For future reference: The direct URL http://oscar.sca.org/kingdom/kingloi.php?kingdom=8&loi=4103#8 works.

Coblaith Muimnech at 2016-12-09 17:25:06
I think there could be an issue with SENA A.3.D.1, here (http://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A3D). The visual weight of the main body of the sun is very similar to that of each eagle, and the ray doesn't add much to it. Add to that the fact that almost all of the sun is at the outer periphery and the eagles are more central and collectively take up more space, and I'm not sure whether we're supposed to be seeing a primary sun and secondary eagles or a single primary charge group.

1: Image 1 2: Image 2

Elena Wyth (Bordure) at 2016-12-09 17:42:17
From http://mistholme.com/dictionary/sun/, the ray of the sun is defined as "a demi-sun issuant from the edge of the shield, with one ray elongated to cross the field" drawn in this way, and in the example Bruce cites on that same page, the chalice is depicted with similar weight, so i'm not sure if this will be a problem. (http://op.atlantia.sca.org/op_ind.php?atlantian_id=2466 for the image of Pascal Brendan Perredy's use of the Ray with another charge)

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:29:01
Not happy with the blazon here, but don't have a better one to offer, and there does seem to be a precedent. The eagles' heads are facing to sinister. Don't we need to say that the birds are in bend sinister? No conflicts found.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-22 11:11:57
Yes, make it:

Sable, a ray of the sun issuant from dexter chief between two eagles heads to sinister Or

But given where the sun and its ray are, I don't see how the eagles could be placed differently, so I don't think in bend sinister helps.

And me, I think Illustration 2 in Lady Coblaith's post represents what I see in the device: A sun whose visual weight in toto is greater than that of either eagle. Were the ray not so thick, I think there'd be more question for me.

Adelaide de Beaumont at 2017-01-03 15:44:15
I have problems with this design. The period depiction of this type of sun was as the sole charge. I hate the appearance here of a pile-type object separating two otherwise arguably primary charges. Pascal's registration was in 1996 and holds little weight as a precedent and certainly not for this depiction.

Guillim, p. 120, from which Bruce cites the sole example, reads in whole, "He beareth Azure, one ray of the Sunne, issuing out of the dexter corner of the Escocheon Bend-waies, proper by the name of Aldam. Here I doe not in the blazon make any mention of the three points or lines which are on either side of the ray, for in Nature they have no essence, but proceed from the weakenesse of the Eye which is not able to behold so glorious an object as the Sunne." What is especially troubling is that Guillim also cites (p. 84) the same armory as "He beareth Azure, a Pile waved, issuing out of the Dexter corner of the Escocheon, Bendwayes, Or, by the name of Aldam. As this Pile waved issueth out of the Dexter, so also may the same be borne from the Sinister chiefe point. Moreover you shall finde them borne in Pale, and sometimes issuing out of the Base with the point thereof transposed, which I leave to observation." I think this is strong evidence that the solar depiction is simply a cutesy way of drawing what is essentially a pile wavy issuant from dexter chief. So we should think about depicting this as though it were the width and visual weight of a pile, and make the secondaries definitely visually secondaries. I also note, as Guillim notes in his discussion, that the sole example does not have alternating straight and wavy rays on either side of the one big ray, but straight rays exclusively.

1: Image 1 2: Image 2

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-03 21:27:43
I believe the evidence of Guillim p. 120 that depicts One ray of the Sunne as the sole possible primary charge would at most make additional charges on the same field a Step from Period Practice, as for a gore with other charges. Also, given we permit whole suns to have "points or rays or a combination" (SENA Appendix M), I would expect us to permit the same variation for a quarter-sun.

However, I now consider that risking Wreath and Laurel's agreement with the judgment of Lady Coblaith and Mistress Adelaide, that the submission blurs the line between primary and secondary charges, would be unfair to submitter. Nevertheless, I shall be troubled if we must penalize submitter with another delay for precisely copying an emblazon from Batonvert's generally reliable PicDic (image below) and adding two charges that nicely fill the spaces left available--a method that might well be expected to produce unexceptionable armory! The more so given that it was we who offered that emblazon as an alternative to his first submission, and that at our urging he has fully abandoned the Roman-Empire depiction he used for his first eagle.

1: Image 1

Tostig Logiosophia (Actuarius) at 2017-01-10 18:24:24
IMO viewing a "ray of the sun" in the same light as a "gore" is likely a non-issue given "Az. seven rays issuing fro the sun in the dexter canton ppr. the centre [sic] ray betw. two estoilles arg." Adllam, co. Somerset; and Wilts." (Papworth, 'Ray' p 1043). It seems a cadency step to Fig 1 from Guillim posted by Adelaide.

Knowing of the pile and sun armory for Aldham in Foster, conflict checks during consultation were done counting only a DC between them and the submitted ray (Also 'Comets' as a forum suggested). No conflicts observed including versus "Sable, a pile throughout between two estoilles of eight points Or." (Grey Niche, Barony of, Badge, April 1980) and "Sable, a mullet of eight points between two scarpes Or." (Wolfgang Grothe de Verron, Device, February 2004).


3: Kilian MacRaith -New Device

OSCAR thinks the name is registered as Kilian Macraith in January of 2005, via Ansteorra.

Quarterly argent and vert, a Celtic cross between in bend two turtles tergiant all counterchanged.

Submitted through the Shire of Graywood

Consulting herald Aron ulf"

Device Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 22:28:59
I am not certain whether or not this is an acceptable Celtic cross. Precedent at http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2010/01/10-01lar.html s.n. Sadb ingen Chonchobair and quoted with approval at http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/04/14-04lar.html#72 for Rafe le Mountere declares

A Celtic cross is a specific type of cross, which has tapering arms. Adding an annulet to any particular type of cross does not automatically make it a Celtic cross. This "crosshair" depiction of a cross is not acceptable.
Now, this charge is different from Sadb and Rafe's returned submissions solely in that it has something like the usual Celtic-cross treatment at its center rather than their gunsight intersections. However, this cross's arms do not noticeably taper from their ends before that intersection.

I note also that the turtles are about as small as is acceptable and, further, that the one in chief being larger than the one that has less space in base would be more in keeping with period style.

Tostig Logiosophia (Actuarius) at 2017-01-10 18:51:08
The emblazon appears to be based on historical artifacts rather than heraldic tracts. IMO the emblazon might be registerable with a SFPP as a period artifact where a heraldic equivalent exists. Attached is one from the 10th Century.

Consider the reblazon "Quarterly argent and vert, a Celtic cross counterchanged between two tortoises vert." "Turtles" in period heraldry were depicted as turtle-doves. http://mistholme.com/dictionary/tortoise/ The submitter, however, has used the byname <Turtle> for decades.

1: Image 1

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-10 19:34:23
I find Actuarius's example of a period Celtic cross to be more similar to the submission in feature description (say, "outer portions of arms do not taper") than in actual outline, and all those closer that I locate with an image search turn out to be modern interpretations.

He is correct about historical usage of "turtle", in and out of heraldry; the OED shows modern usage to begin just post-period, in 1657. Nevertheless, of the hundred or so occurrences of the charge turtle in our O&A, every one is coded REPTILE-TURTLE. So best as submitted:

Quarterly argent and vert, a Celtic cross between in bend two turtles tergiant all counterchanged.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:30:14
Agree that this isn't a properly drawn Celtic cross. If it were, there would be no conflicts. Agree that the upper turtle should be a bit larger.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:18:13
While precedent says the arms of a Celtic cross taper, it has never said they must taper throughout their entire length. At the least, it seems to me, this should be sent up so that matter can be ruled on.

I agree the turtles ought to be bigger.

I didn't find any conflict.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-04 17:09:53
I assume the submitter will be asked for consent to make this a test case rather than revise the emblazon.


4: Lazarus Heydewolff von Robel -New Device

OSCAR finds the name on the Ansteorra LoI of March 30, 2014 as submitted.

Quarterly argent ang gules, a wolf head erased, counter changed, charged in chief sinister with a cross formy argent.

Submitted through the Barony of Bjornsborg

Consulting herald Phelisettee d'Avignon

Device Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 22:36:30
Correcting the blazon for typos, etc.

Quarterly argent and gules, a wolf's head erased counterchanged charged in sinister chief with a cross formy argent.

Excellent wolf's head.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:32:03
The field is quarterly gules and argent. Otherwise agree with Michael's blazon. No conflicts found.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-22 11:14:46
What comes of blindly copying the offered blazon. (And do call me Gerard--I'm one of those intensely irritating people who goes by his middle name.) So:

Quarterly gules and argent, a wolf's head erased counterchanged charged in sinister chief with a cross formy argent.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-23 07:46:40
It's so common, and so annoying, when one is focused on a particular aspect and totally misses something even more obvious. It's certainly happened to me far too often and seems to happen to others from time to time as well.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:20:55
I didn't find any conflict.


5: Marcus Livius Antoninus -New Name

Submitter desires a masculine name.

Submitted through the Barony of Loch Soillier

Consulting herald Artorius Germanus

All names found on College of Heralds website.

(Asterisk : am assuming this means

A Simple Guide to Imperial Roman Names

Ursula Georges

http://heraldry.sca.org/names/roman.html

That article documents the pattern Praenomen + Nomen + Cognomen, and the three names given here appear on those three respective lists.)

Name Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 22:37:55
Documentation confirmed as represented.

Maridonna Benvenuti at 2016-12-09 05:35:41
Docs check out. I didn't find any conflicts. Nice name!

Ursula Georges (Palimpsest) at 2016-12-11 18:26:52
Nice name!

The various famous Romans named <Marcus Livius> had cognomina other than <Antoninus>.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-12 17:29:20
I didn't even think of presumption, just conflict with those registered. I'm glad you did, Palimpsest.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:33:00
Docs check out. No conflicts found.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:28:00
Documentation probably is as Asterix guessed, and the formation and the names are all there.

I didn't find any conflict.


6: Mary D'ash Elizabeth -New Name & New Device

Argent, on a bend sable between two squirrels sejant erect gules, three chalices Or.

Submitter desires a feminine name.

Submitted through the Barony Bordermarch

No consulting herald given.

Mary - (f) Withycombe pg. 201 - Mary

D'ash - Reaney and Wilson pg. 15 - Arrom-Ashdown

1599 from a place called Ash, or "dweller" by the ash-tree

Elizabeth -- Withycombe pg. 94 Eliot-Elizabeth

Middle/Early Modern English - given + byname + byname - SENA Appendix A

Elizabeth - Susan Elizabeth, female marriage 25 December 1644

Upton Cum Chalvey, Buckingham, England, RICHARD TIPPING batch : M073761

Submitted through the Barony Bordermarch

Consulting herald not given.

Name Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 23:12:15
The reference to R&W seems to be misstated and/or misread. The 1599 date there s.n. Ash (etc.) is for a particular citation, <Teshe>.

There is no warrant there for the form <D'ash>. Nor do I believe there will be found relevant cases of a capitalized <D'> followed by a lower case letter; the reverse is of course exceedingly common. (Irrelevantly, there is a Francophone Twitter user called Apolline <d'Ash>.)

The submitter may wish to understand that the form <de Asche> is shown in R&W for 1296 and <de Ayssh> for 1320, both within 500 years of submitter's gray-period FamilySearch citation of <Elizabeth> as a surname.

We may also note two in-period hits there, Robert <Elizabeth>, married 2 May 1574, M00050-1, and Henry <Elizabeth>, married 08 Jul 1587, M03223-2, although that their marriages are each to a woman with the first name <Elizabeth> is perhaps disturbing.

ffride wlffsdotter at 2016-12-12 04:42:36
R&W sn. Ash has (that I suspect are relevant):
<Richard del Eshe> 1221
<Ralph de Asche> 1296
<Richard Dasche> 1320
<[Richard] de Ayssh> 1327

If we assume that the apostrophe is a scribal abbreviation, then we're probably looking at the locative byname "de Ash."
Now, SENA Appendix A only has the pattern "given+byname+loc" with the locative byname at the end of the name, so I'd recommend going with Maridonna's later-period inherited surname "Dash" for the "given+byname+byname" pattern.

Maridonna Benvenuti at 2016-12-09 05:53:58
There was a Richard Dash buried 23 May 1604 in Ashby-Magna, Leicester, England. England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991. Batch I01345-5. https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bsurname%3ADash~%20%2Bdeath_place%3A England~%20%2Bdeath_year%3A1500-1630~%20%2Brecord_country%3AEngland

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-09 16:24:59
The I-batches at FamilySearch are to "be evaluated on a case by case basis" because "some names in this batch [group] are normalized, and earlier indexes may reflect out of date scholarship". See http://heraldry.sca.org/names/familysearch.html and links therein. I have no immediate clue as to how to discover what the situation is for a given batch.

However, on Lady Maridonna's search, we also have Johannes Dash, christened 24 Jan 1618, Saint Mary, Hinckley, Leicester, England, C03452-1, which qualifies as reliable. There may be earlier acceptable hits, but I've got to go shop before tomorrow's revel now.

Maridonna Benvenuti at 2016-12-10 05:31:17
Here's another one: Thomas Dash was christened in 1598 in Assington, Suffolk, England. Batch P01201-1. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NL2H-T8M

Tostig Logiosophia (Actuarius) at 2017-01-10 19:05:52
If memory serves (It's been 7 months), Thomas Dash was the one suggested at the consult (to put it in the same era as the surname Elizabeth).

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:35:33
Reaney & Wilson's entry for "Ash" has about a dozen documented spellings, but not this one. The closest are Ralph de Asche from 1296 and Richard Dasche from 1120. Unmarked metronymics are registerable. No conflicts found.

Adelaide de Beaumont at 2017-01-03 16:22:29
I'm not sure we want to send on a joke name without at least a mention. Mary-Elizabeth. The use of Elizabeth as a surname is odd enough to make the selection obvious, especially if we correct it to Mary Dash Elizabeth.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-03 21:34:14
Given that I for one failed to make the leap (not least because as a copy-setter I must insist that that's not a dash, it's a hyphen!), that interpretation should indeed be mentioned in the XLoI.

Tostig Logiosophia (Actuarius) at 2017-01-10 19:10:43
It was my understanding at the time of the consult that two gentles go by Mary Elizabeth in that Branch and "Dash" was used as a byname there to differentiate between the two.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:37:54
I didn't find any conflict.

Given that the joke of this name depends on what I believe is a non-period form of names (or are hyphenated names period?), I wonder if this is disruptively modern?

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-04 19:05:13
This point, too, ought to be passed on up (assuming the name is) to Pelican.

Hyphenated names in French, where I for one thought them to be ubiquitous--e.g., Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Luc Picard--turn out to be well post-period. The "Prénom composé" article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9nom_compos%C3%A9 tells us that compound first names came in from Spain in Louis XIV's time (17th c.) (doubtless then unhyphenated as they still are in Spanish) and that the trait d'union or hyphen starts appearing in baptismal records 1770-1780.

However, we should also mention that while hyphenated names are known in modern English they are not and (I believe) never have been common. E.g., Google and Yahoo searches on mary-elizabeth -winstead (so as not to let the actress Mary Elizabeth Winstead have multiple votes for non-hyphenation) find no instances whatever of hyphenated <Mary-Elizabeth> in the first 100 hits nor are there any in the entirety of a duckduckgo.com search. Similar searches on mary-louise -parker -kelly (Ms. Parker is in fact Mary-Louise, as Ms. Kelly is not) are slightly more productive, finding two or three with hyphens among the vast majority without.

Device Comments:

Shannon inghean Bhriain uí Dhuilleaín (Shannon inghaen Bhriain uí Dhuilleaín) at 2016-12-11 17:24:37
No conflicts found.

Does the orientation of the cups need to be blazoned?

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-12 17:27:56
No, bendwise on a bend is default. If they were palewise, the way so many submissions set charges on bends and chevrons, that would need to be blazoned.

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:36:01
No conflicts found.

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:42:25
I didn't find any conflict.


7: Yrsa Haraldsdottir -New Device

OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in August of 2014, via Ansteorra.

Vert, an owl within a bordure argent semy of cinquefoils azure pierced.

Submitted through the Barony of Bjornsborg

Consulting herald Adelaide de Beaumont

Device Comments:

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-08 23:27:49
For once charges blazoned as cinquefoils actually are. As noted at http://mistholme.com/dictionary/foil/, "They are not of any natural species, but are highly stylized heraldic charges: the petals are usually drawn rounded, with points at the ends." And with short handles between the center and the petals, as shown in the image below.

While all of these characteristics are clear when the emblazon here is enlarged and viewed close in, the small size of the charges obscures them when properly viewed, so that I assumed at first these were simply five-petaled flowers. (At http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=16599, Istvan Wreath declared: "a mini which is X high should be viewed from a distance of 20*X" in the same units." That means viewing the 2" display on my screen at about double arm's length, ~40".) But given that Laurel does not enforce Mistholme's strict definition, I believe that no adjustments are necessary here.

1: Image 1

Adelaide de Beaumont at 2017-01-03 16:24:32
Hey, I drew them freehand and quickly.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-03 21:38:17
I cry Mistress Adelaide mercy. My own calculation of my comment was that it came to a compliment for her work!

Gawain of Miskbridge (Green Anchor) at 2016-12-22 09:37:56
No conflicts found. Since the owl is simply argent, it might be more precise to say "Vert, an owl argent within a bordure argent semy of cinquefoils azure pierced argent."

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2016-12-22 11:17:22
It's in fact necessary, not just precise, to say it that way; otherwise (as Green Anchor suggests) we strew cinquefoils all over the owl!

Basil Dragonstrike (Lions Heart) at 2017-01-04 16:50:06
Clear of:

Elena verch Gwalchmai
The following device associated with this name was registered in August of 2003 (via Caid):
Vert, a falcon argent within a bordure argent semy of triquetras vert.
for tincture and type of the tertiaries.

Clear of:
Jngridh Pædhersdotter
The following device associated with this name was registered in June of 2010 (via Trimaris):
Vert, an owl contourny within a bordure argent.
for posture of the owl and addition of the tertiaries.

Nothing else worth noting. It looks clear to me.

Michael Gerard Curtememoire at 2017-01-04 17:53:34
From Elena there is a third DC. By precedent at http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2000/01/00-01lar.html s.n. Wojciech Bobrowski, quoted with approval at http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/06/14-06lar.html#157 s.n. Sofya la Rus, "Falcons and owls were different charges in period and have differing outlines; therefore we are allowing a CD (although not substantial difference) between them."

I was concerned that from Jngridh there might be one less DC. However, http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2003/11/03-11lar.html s.n. Sigurd Grunewald reassured me that Lions Heart's count is correct:

Some of the commentary noted the precedent stating that there is no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl affronty, and wondered if that meant there was no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister. The precedent in question, on the LoAR of August 1992, states, "The owl's posture has slightly changed, from statant close guardant to statant close affronty (which is guardant by definition). The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty." Conflict is not transitive: if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C, it is not required that A must conflict with C. In this case, while there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to dexter, and there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to sinister, there is sufficient visual difference to allow a CD between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister.


Thank you for your time & commentary.

Vigdís Gráfeldr, Asterisk Herald


OSCAR counts 2 Names and 6 Devices. There are a total of 8 items submitted on this letter.