Forgot your password?
An Tir IL dated 2012-07-18 (Jump to Submissions)
To Anthony Black Lion, Oddr Lions Blood, and the venerable College of heralds in An Tir and the known world, I send greetings from Viktor Black Talbot. This month we have 20 items appearing in the letter.
Commentary for this letter will be due by August 24th.
FROM LIONS BLOOD
I hope to see you all at July Coronation, where all my tread softly but carry big sticks.
The next Lions Blood meetings are currently scheduled for:
- Saturday, 25 August, at William Tell (River's Bend), discussing this letter
- Sunday, 23 September, at my home in Mill Creek, discussing the August IL
Our happy pasttime begins with consulting heralds.
You are the client's first, best defense against returns. You are my first, best defense against heartache and unnecessary work. If your name appears on the submission form, you should expect me to contact you regarding issues. If your name appears on such a form and you're unaware of it, you might need to consider being more cautious regarding drive-by consultation. I would rather see some herald caught unawares than no herald listed at all, but I would rather see a herald very much aware of the submission packet being sent with their name attached to it.
I strongly urge consulting heralds -- all heralds, but in particular, those who consult -- to ensure that the basics of a heraldic submission are covered. In particular, please save heartache by:
- being aware of stylistic issues, such as slot machine, contrast issues, or unregisterable charges and knotwork;
- being aware of administrative issues, such as lack of documentation, or incomplete names;
- ensuring clients understand submission fees, and include them as appropriate.
Obviously, a consultation can only achieve so much, and some issues will -- unwittingly or under duress -- make their way into a submission packet. However, the consultation can provide the quickest means to reduce the amount of time, money, and energy spent for such obvious returns, pends, and redraws. And, when in doubt, always remember the wealth of knowledge to be found in your fellow heralds online, via the An Tir Heralds email list as well as other lists and web sites.
With utmost gratitude and in debt to all the members of our College, I remain --
Oddr Lions Blood
The following is excerpted from the May 2012 Cover Letter:
From Laurel: Letters of Permission to Conflict
While we are certainly pleased to accept Letters of Permission to Conflict, we must remind submitters that permission must be granted to a specific individual or individuals that we will later be able to identify. Likewise, Blanket Letters of Permission to Conflict may limit their Blanket Permission only to specific individuals that we will later be able to identify. Specifying such things as "members of the household" or "members of the barony" leaves Laurel with the unenviable task of determining membership in those groups, something we cannot do.
With regards to the new Standards for Evaluation, Blanket Letters of Permission to Conflict that grant permission for an item that is "one countable step (CD)" from the registered armory will be understood under the new Standards to mean the equivalent, a distinct change (DC).
From Pelican and Wreath: Notes on Terminology in Rulings
This month marks the first of a several-month phase-in period, where we will consider submissions under both the old Rules for Submissions and the new Standards for Evaluations, and register the submission if possible under whichever rule set is most favorable to the submission. While both rule sets are in effect, we will strive to be clear in our decisions as to which rule set is applied. If there is no decision text in an acceptance, one may assume the registration was allowable under both rule sets. This will continue through the October 2012 decision meetings, after which only the Standards for Evaluation will be in effect.
For armory, with few exceptions, anything previously considered a significant change, or clear difference (CD), is the same sort of thing that is worth a distinct change (DC). Some decisions will be written with this in mind. For example, "a CD/DC for the change of field," describes the situation in which a CD is granted under the old Rules for Submissions and a DC is granted under the new Standards for Evaluation for the exact same type of change.
From Pelican and Wreath: Submissions Analysis for May
As we are considering submissions under both the Rules for Submissions and the Standards for Evaluation, we thought back to the last time we had a major change of rules, in late 1989 through early 1990. Like with those decisions done under "parallel processing", we have decided to keep records of the results to share. These counts include registered or returned items only; no administrative actions such as transfers or acceptances, associations of existing armory, heraldic wills, or other such letters will be included in these counts.
"Armory style" and "armory conflict" indicate if a submitted item could only be passed under one rule set or the other due to conflict or style issues. For example, a submission that could not be registered under the old rules due to conflict but could be registered without conflict under the new standards will be counted as "passed under the new standards, but not old" as armory conflict.
Passed under both sets of rules: 169 total, 90 names, 79 armory
Returned under both sets of rules: 20 total, 3 names, 17 armory
Passed under old rules, but not new: 6 total, 2 names, 4 armory style, 0 armory conflict
Passed under new rules, but not old: 21 total, 15 names, 0 armory style, 6 armory conflict
If math is not your thing, it may be interesting to note that if all submissions were considered only under the Rules for Submissions, there would be an 81% success rate. Considered only under the Standards for Evaluation, there would be an 88% success rate.
From Pelican: The Legal Name Allowance and Hyphenated Family Names
This month, we were asked to determine if part of a hyphenated surname was eligible for the legal name allowance. Normally, we require the entire name phrase to be used in the legal name allowance. However, hyphenated surnames are a special case, as they invariably represent a combination of two distinct family names rather than a single name phrase. This can be seen in the way these names are formed and inherited; the combinations tend to change from generation to generation. Thus, the name phrase on either side of a hyphenated surname is considered an independent name phrase and is eligible for the legal name allowance.
From Pelican: Some Names Resources (a series): Marital Names Part 2
In March, we began a discussion of marital bynames: how husbands and wives share (or fail to share) bynames. While it's typical in the modern world for a married couple to share a surname, this was not true in many areas of Europe in the Middle Ages.
One common type of medieval byname is a patronymic byname, which names a person as their father's child (less frequently, there are matronymic bynames, which indicate a person's mother, or other bynames of relationship). In period, many of these bynames are quite literal (as opposed to inherited family names). These literal bynames are not shared by spouses; having the same patronymic byname would suggest that they have the same father.
There are a few late period cultures and languages in which women sometimes take on their husband's family name (there are no languages or cultures in which this always happens). This is true for English and for French. In German, there is an interesting variant: married women often use a femininized version of their husband's surname (see Aryanhwy merch Catmael's "Women's Surnames in 15th- and 16th-Century Germany" http:
In those languages that are recorded by English scribes, we also see women's names recorded with their husband's bynames. We are not sure whether this is an accurate recording of how those women would have written or said their names. However, in late period Anglicized Irish and Welsh names recorded by English scribes, we see women using their husband's bynames.
From Wreath: Unified Posture and Arrangement
Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation, Unity of Posture and Orientation, states:
The charges within a charge group should be in either identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall points outward, for example). A charge group in which postures for different charges must be blazoned individually will not be allowed without period examples of that combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.
All of the examples given are of groups with the same charge type. But what about groups of mixed charge types?
It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures", as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a whole must still be in a standard arrangement.
For example, two lions and an eagle is in a standard two-and-one arrangement for a group of three charges, and is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds and birds. Quadrupeds and birds do not have comparable postures, so this is allowable under A3D2c. For example, two lions and a bear sejant is a mixed-type charge group consisting of quadrupeds; as quadrupeds do have comparable postures and the lions and bear are not in identical postures, this is not allowable under A3D2c. For example, two swords in saltire and a lion is a mixed-type charge group consisting of inanimate charges and animate charges, which do not have comparable postures. However, the entire group is not in a single unified arrangement, but instead has the swords and the lion arranged separately. This is not an allowable arrangement under A3D2c, without further documentation of its use in period.
From Wreath: Ermine Variants
Section A3B1 of the Standards for Evaluation, Tinctures, states:
Furs are a group of named patterns used as tinctures. For the purposes of tincture, ermined furs are grouped in the same way as their background color. Ermine (a white background with black tails) and erminois (a yellow background with black tails) are metals. Counter-ermine (a black background with white tails) and pean (a black background with yellow tails) are colors.
This, along with lack of other ermine variants listed in Appendix F, has been frequently interpreted to mean that "non-standard" ermine variants are no longer allowable under the Standards for Evaluation. However, that was not the intent of Palimpsest. As the rule is written, it is describing what the specifically-named patterns represent; it makes no mention good or ill of other ermine variants, which we blazon as X ermined Y.
Research on period examples of ermine variants was mixed. We have found several examples, unfortunately undated. Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, Vol. 1, p. 76, lists quite a few examples as "foreign variations". Most can be found repeated in Rietstap. Woodward cites Roux, which is repeated in Rietstap as Roux alias Roulx du Chesnot, Azure, semy of ermine spots argent, an eagle Or armed gules. Woodward and Rietstap cite Van Leefvelt, Gules, semy of ermine spots Or, Beuville, Gules, semy of ermine spots, a fleur-de-lys argent, and Schleiden, Azure, semy of ermine spots Or, a lion argent. Woodward goes on to cite examples of ermine spots used as discrete numbered charges, including Baysse with Gules, six ermine spots Or. All of these examples are likely post-period, although they could just as easily date to late period.
Closer to period, we have Abbrege' methodique des principes de la science heraldique, by Jean-Claude Favre, 1647, which on p. 30 gives the specific example of "11. Monsieur tel porte d'hermine, d'azur & d'argent".
And finally, for a definite period source, we have Les Blason des armoiries, by Hierome de Bara, 1581, which on p. 9 says "Car l'Hermine est d'argent & de sable, & le Vair d'argent & d'azur. Toutesfois en blasonant, on ne les specifie pas, mais en vn mot on dit: Tel Seigneur porte d'Hermines, ou de Vair, excepté quand ils sont d'autre metal & et couleur, car alors on doit dire: Tel Seigneur porte d'Hermines, ou de Vair, d'Or, Synople, Gueulles, ou autre." On p. 13 de Bara gives the specific example of Gules, three ermine spots Or. Brunissende Dragonette was kind enough to give the following translation: "Ermine is argent and sable, and Vair is argent and azure. However, one doesn't specify when blazoning, but just says: This Lord bears Ermine or Vair; unless they are of another metal and color, as then one must say: This Lord bears Ermine or Vair Or, Vert, Gules or other."
The latter two sources are heraldic treatises, which are not always to be trusted for actual practice, as opposed to theoretical. However, they do give us a guide as to the sorts of things period and just-post-period heralds felt were suitable for use in armory.
The SCA is its own heraldic jurisdiction; as section A1A1 of the Standards for Evaluation states, "Our core style is not identical to the style of any single specific place and time, although it is based on the dominant style in medieval Western Europe, the Anglo-Norman style" At worst, ermine variants are post-period, but a logical and unremarkable extension of period heraldic style; at best, they are indeed period. Therefore, we hereby clarify that ermine variants in all tincture combinations are allowable without a step from period practice so long as the rule of contrast is followed.
We propose a wording change to Appendix F of the Standards for Evaluation. It currently reads:
The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A.3.B.1. Other heraldic tinctures may only be registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.
We would like commentary on the following proposed change:
The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A.3.B.1. Furs are treated as a single tincture; a fur may combine any color with any metal (for example, gules ermined Or, vairy argent and sable). Other heraldic tinctures may only be registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.
Laurel registered the following items in May 2012:
Ánrothán Ó Murchadha. Name.
Aoife inghean Phaidín. Name and device. Argent, a bee sable marked Or, on a chief azure three dogwood blossoms argent.
Crínóc Donn. Badge. (Fieldless) On a wine amphora argent, a goutte de vin.
Iohannes ap Madoc. Name.
Kallikleas Lysias. Name change from holding name Bryce of Tir Rígh.
Luther Magnus von Danzig. Name.
Marcus Octavius Rufus. Name.
Melannei Athenaios. Name.
Morrine inghean Alaxandair. Name and device. Argent, a hummingbird rising vert between three triquetras purpure.
Robert of Wolford. Device. Sable, a wolf rampant ermine and a ford proper.
Sadb Hálsdóttir. Name and device. Per bend vert and Or, a bend between a drakkar and a mortar and pestle counterchanged.
Laurel returned no items in May 2012:
LIONS BLOOD ACTIONS
The following items have been forwarded to Laurel:
Dmitrii Luchnikov. New Name & New Device. Argent, an arrow vert.
Kira Baranova. New Name & New Device. Sable, a bear passant gardant argent, in canton a compass star Or.
Kattera Giese. New Name & New Device. Purpure, a chevron gules fimbriated between two eagles and a wolf's head couped ululant argent.
Spike Dirk Zoetaert. New Name. (See Returns for Device)
Vivien des Lauriers. New Name & New Device. Azure, in chief a cross of Calatrava argent, flaunches Or semy-de-lis vert.
The following items have been returned for further work:
Alessandra Donato. - New Device. Argent, a peacock contourny azure.
Regrettably, this submission must be returned for conflict.
A5G1e grants a DC for fielded vs fieldless armory. Otherwise, the submission is identical, since azure is a suitable interpretation of proper for a peacock, and the submission is in conflict.
We believe A5E5a does not apply here. Neglecting the minor posture modification of reguardant, we are comparing a peacock close against a peacock close contourny, which are comparable postures for birds, but which are both in the same posture group. Given that, we see no immediate clearance of conflict.
A5G7a states that "To count as a distinct change, a change of posture or orientation among comparable charges must distinctly change the appearance of a charge. For animate charges, a change in the position of the head or tail is not significant; [...]", and thus we are unable to grant a DC for the change in direction of the head.
Given no other DCs, the submission is in conflict.
We believe the submission to be clear of Ismay Ponde. The Oct 2007 LOAR comments on the claymore that "The term atop makes clear that the claymore is not a maintained charge, but is worth difference." Given that, A5E3 applies: "A primary charge group with one, two, or three charges does not conflict with armory having a primary charge group with any other number or semy."
Spike Dirk Zoetaert. - New device. Argent, a schnecke issuant from base maintaining on the outer swirl three schneckes, vert.
This item, sadly, is returned for conflict.
A5G3a gives a DC for change in tincture, but no other DCs are to be found.
Precedent from June 2011 LOAR:
This indicates that at least a DC is obtainable between a snail vert and a schneke vert, but avoids stating whether there is difference enough to consider them clear of conflict.
We note that the defining instance for this type of schneke was registered as "Or, a schnecke issuant from base maintaining on the outer swirl three schneckes sable." [Alia Marie de Blois, May 2012 - East]. This strongly suggests the form differs only in maintained charges which do not contribute to difference. The documentation used for the defining instance is the 1377-8 L'Armorial Bellenville, MS Français 5230, while the present submission uses the Gelre Armorial's depiction of Die Casteleynsche: "d'or au giron mouvant de la pointe; gironnant à dextre; bordé de 3 petits girons courbés dans le même sens, le tout de sa."
Black Talbot Herald
An Tir OSCAR counts: 6 New Names, 1 New Household Name, 7 New Devices, 1 New Device Change, 2 New Badges. This gives 17 new items. Resub counts: 2 Resub Devices, 1 Resub Badge. This is a total of 3 resubmissions on this letter, for a total of 20 actions.