Outlands College of Heralds
From the office of the Rampart Herald
Pendar the Bard - 10 Magnifico - Los Lunas, NM 87031 - (505) 866-4369
musimon@zcloud.net

Line Emblazon Sheet
Color Emblazon Sheet

October 2001 Letter of Presentation
December 2001 Letter of Intent
April 2002 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page.

On November 29, 2001, a Rampart Meeting was held to consider the Letter of Presentation dated October 3, 2001. In attendance were Countess Anne Aliz de Bâle, Fretty Herald, Earl Cathyn Fitzgerald, Lady Kiena Munro, Lady Alia Marie de Blois, and a currently nameless new girl (Though she’s thinking about “Oxsana”). Letters of comment were received from Shayk Da’ud ibn Auda, al-Jamal Herald; Gawain of Miskbridge, Green Anchor Herald; Evan da Collaureo, Kraken Herald of Atlantia, and the Loud Tabard Irregulars; Jeanne Marie Lacroix, Sommelier Pursuivant; Baron Timothy O’Brien, HE; and the Citadel Consortium including Dulcinea Margarita Teresa Velázquez de Ribera, Trefoil Herald. Here are the decisions from these deliberations.

  1. Bronwen Blackwell. New Name and Device. Per pale vert and argent, a seeblatt counterchanged.

  2. al-Barran, Barony of
    "Bronwen" is SCA compatible. "Blackwell" is in R&W, p.47, under the heading Blackwell.

    [Kraken] - (Name): “No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Sommelier] - (Name): “Bronwen has been ruled SCA compatible as recently as 12/99. Make sure to add "R&W date this spelling of Blackwell to ?"”
    [Timothy] - (Name): “Ok."
    [Kraken] - (Device): “This should be clear of Avicia le Mey (Nov 97): "Per pale vert and argent, five hawthorn leaves in cross counterchanged," with CD's for number and type of leaves. The difference in outline between hawthorn and (stylized) water-lily leaves should suffice for that second CD. We found nothing else close.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “No conflicts found.”

    ACTION: Name Passed. Device Passed.

  3. Caterine d'Albret. Device Resubmission. (K) Per pale vert and purpure, three fleurs-de-lys argent.

  4. Caerthe, Barony of
    Her name is currently in process on the September 2001 Letter of Presentation. Her previous device submission, "Per pall Or, purpure, and vert, a fleur-de-lys argent", will be returned on the November 2001 Letter of Response for conflict.

    [Kraken] - (Device): “No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “No conflicts found.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “What, exactly, was the conflict. We cannot determine if this clears without that information.”

    ACTION: Device Passed.

  5. Conchenn ingen Briain. Name Resubmission. (K)

  6. Unser Hafen, Barony of
    Her previous name submission, "Concholbarre ni Bryon", was returned from Kingdom on the July 28, 2000 Letter of Response. The feminine patronymic particle was not correct for the masculine given name and no documentation could be found for the spelling "Bryon". "Conchenn" is found in a web article, Early Irish Feminine Names from the Index to O'Brien's Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae, compiled and explained by Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn, c. 1997, 1999 by Heather Rose Jones. http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/tangwystyl/obrien/ The source for this is a compilation of early 12th century Irish pedigrees. "ingen" means "daughter of" and is also explained in the web article. "Briain" is the genitive form of "Brian" as found in O'C&M, p.35. The name Brian has been very popular in Ireland since Brian Boru won the battle of Clontarf in 1014. Her device submission, "Per chevron vert and argent, two spoons in saltire argent and a brown mouse statant erect proper", was pended awaiting a name.

    [Kraken] - (Name): “No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Timothy] - (Name): “Looks Ok to me.”

    ACTION: Name Passed. Device Passed.

  7. Dietrich Karl von Andernach. Name Resubmission. (K)

  8. Citadel of the Southern Pass, Barony of This is his third name submission. The first one, "Dietrich von Andernach" was returned from Kingdom in March of 1997 for a direct conflict with the registered name "Dietrich von Andernach". His second submission, "Dietrich Carolingian von Andernach", was returned from Kingdom in July of 2000 for lack of evidence that "Carolingian" was ever used as a name element by an individual human being. "Dietrich" is in Bahlow, p.94. "Karl" is in Bahlow, p.273. The client documents "Andernach" using the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956. It is a town in western Germany on the left bank of the Rhine 10 miles NW of Coblenz. Antunnacum, the Roman frontier station, was founded by Drusus. In 1109 Andernach received its civil rights. In 1253 it joined the confederation of the Rhine cities, and was the most southern member of the Hanseatic league. His device resubmission, "Per chevron gules and sable, an eagle displayed between three crosses formy Or", was pended awaiting a name.

    [Kraken] - (Name): “Looks good to us.”
    [Sommelier] - (Name): “You need dates, if possible, for the name elements. Bahlow is a good source, but my copy is at home. So? Dietrich is dated to 1318, in this spelling, in Talan Gwynek's article "Medieval German Given Names from Silesia" found at . Karl is found dated to 1501-1550 in Plauen according to Talan's article "Late Period German Masculine Given Names" at . Andernach doesn't have its own entry in the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica, but the documentation provided should be sufficient.”
    [Timothy] - (Name): “Hooray! Dietrich finally has something registerable! Looks good to me.”
    [Sommelier] - (Device): “For his device, "displayed" can be dropped from the blazon as this is the default posture for an eagle.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “Note: since his device was pended awaiting a name, should it not be on this letter??”

    ACTION: Name Passed. Device Passed.

  9. Katherine Linnet Holford. New Badge. Sable, a Catherine wheel argent charged with a capital letter A gules.

  10. Caer Galen, Shire of Her name was registered in March of 1987 via the Outlands.

    [Green Anchor] - (Badge): “If she wants to bear the scarlet letter, well, Toyota.”
    [Kraken] - (Badge): “There's an interesting problem here. Just as with harps, wheels have a lot of "void" space in their interiors. Therefore, should the supposed "tertiary" charge contrast with the wheel or with the field? This question is before the CoA in regard to harps (Atlantian LoI of 27 Aug 01, #19, Katerina Kristianovna Volokhova vnuka). For what it's worth, Catherine du Fay (Sep 90) has "Vert, on a wheel argent a winged cat sejant affronty wings displayed Or," where both charges contrast with the field. This is effectively a moot point though, as the instant submission conflicts with Iathus of Scara (Apr 83): "Sable, a roundel embattled voided argent," which charge is also known as a cogwheel and is not a CD away from a Catherine wheel; the only CD is for the other charge”
    [Timothy] - (Badge): “Possible conflict: Iathus of Scara, 4/83, Atenveldt, "Sable, a roundel embattled voided argent." Assuming the letter A in Katherine's submission is a secondary charge (which I do assume, since it is not blazoned "surmounted by" and in the emblazon the A does not extend onto the field), she gets 1 CD for its addition. Is there another CD between a Catherine wheel and a rondel embattled voided?”
    [Citadel] - (Badge): “This would be so much better as a fieldless badge.”

    ACTION: Badge Passed for a Laurel call. The client will be informed of the possible conflict.

  11. Ophelia Mulryan. Device Resubmission. (L) Per fess azure and argent, a mermaid in her vanity proper crined gules, in chief three escallops argent.

  12. Dragonsspine, Barony of Her name was registered in November 2000 via Drachenwald. Her previous device submission, "Per bend sinister azure and argent, a mermaid in her vanity proper crined gules, in chief three escallops argent", was returned from Laurel in November of 2000 because proper Caucasian skin is equivalent to argent and if drawn properly, the effectively argent skin of the mermaid would be largely against the argent part of the field. It was returned for violating RfS VIII.2, Armorial Contrast. Johan Magnusson Kivisuo, Edelweiss Herald, suggested dividing the field per fess as one way to fix the problem.

    [Kraken] - (Device): “Please warn the submitter to be careful about how the mermaid is drawn; the top of the tail should actually be slightly higher than the line of division, to keep the argent part of the field from touching the "argent" skin of the mermaid's torso. This should not require a redraw, just a warning. No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “I can find no conflicts for this, but I recommend that the submittor be offered the chance to appeal the previous return. The following examples both violate that reason for return (and this is just mermaids, not looking under other human figures): A. Everild of Bloreheath, 11/86, An Tir, "Argent, a mermaid affronty proper, crined sable, tailed vert, armed with a sword and shield gules, and in chief three sprigs of heather purpure." B. Cordelia of Diamon Cove, 8/93, West, "Argent, a mermaid in her vanity proper, rined sable, on a chief invected azure three lozenges argent." There are also numerous examples of "Or, a mermaid proper..."”

    ACTION: Device Passed.

  13. Phiala O'Ceallaigh. New Device. Vert, a fret throughout fretted with a mascle, a bordure argent.

  14. Nahrun Kabirun, Shire of Her name was registered in May of 1994 via the East. This does not appear much different from a regular fret/fretty. Nevertheless, I did not find any conflicts. Everything close either used the fret/fretty as a secondary charge group or had tertiaries on the peripheral. The closest was Eleanor d'Autun, (9/98 Calontir): "Vert, a fret couped within an annulet argent." There is nothing for the fret being throughout vs. couped, but we should get 1 CD for an annulet vs. a mascle, and a second CD for the bordure. The bordure is way too thin, but if that's the only problem I can easily make it wider myself before sending it to Laurel.

    [al-Jamal] - (Device): “A problem with this design is that it is next to impossible to devise a blazon that will unambiguously reproduce the emblazon. RfS VII.7.b. requires that "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon." There is nothing in the blazon that adequately notes the precise relationship between the fret and the mascle, and the emblazon requires a very specific drawing of the "mascle" (in truth, a "delf bendwise voided"; lozenges tend not to be square) to work visually. "Note that this is overall a very modern design, requiring the depiction of the mullet [on] the dovetailed saltire in a specific manner to work: period heraldry did not measure thus in millimeters!" (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22) "The correct identification of the tertiary depends on a precise depiction and arrangement of the charges that is not period." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 28 May 90, p.14)”
    [Kraken] - (Device): “This is effectively identical to "Vert fretty, a bordure argent." Against Eleanor d'Autun as cited on the LoP&R, there is no CD for fretty vs. a fret, and just one CD for changing the bordure to an annulet. The second CD must then come from couping the fret (to fit in the annulet). Whether that is worth a CD is up to the Laurel Team to decide.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “No conflicts found.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “This bordure is sooooo narrow that it cannot be called that. Otherwise, if there are no conflicts, this looks fine.”

    ACTION: Device Returned for being unblazonable.

  15. Sabiha al-Zarqua. New Name and Device. Azure, a carrack in full sail pennons flying Or, issuant from a trimount argent.

  16. Unser Hafen, Barony of The documentation she provides for "Sabiha" comes from an e-mail correspondence with Shayk Da'ud ibn Auda, al-Jamal Herald. "Salahuddin Ahmed, "A Dictionary of Muslim Names", pp. 318-319, cites Sabiha, and notes the historical person Sabiha Malika Qurtaba, the wife of the Umayyad Khalifa al-Hakim al-Mustansir. He also states in a footnote that "she was knows as 'queen of Cordova,'", and cites to Fatima Memissi's "The Forgotten Queens of Islam", p. 44. Sabiha Malika Qurtaba means literally Sabiha, queen of Cordova, Cordova (Arabic Qurtaba) being a capital city in Muslim Spain. In any case, Sabiha appears to be a period feminine Arabic given name, and there should be no problem in registering it." "al-Zarqua" is found in a web article, Arabic Naming Practices And Period Names List by Da'ud ibn Auda, © 1998 by David Appleton. http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/daud/arabic-naming/ It is listed at the bottom under "Women's Cognomens" and means "the blue-eyed".

    [al-Jamal] - (Name): “The documentation for the given name is as stated in the ILoP. There is no "u" in *al-Zarqa'*, not in the article on St.Gabriel (cited in the LoI), not in the article on the Laurel website, and not in the article as published in various proceedings of the Known World Heraldic Symposium. It's certainly possible, or even likely, that the finial apostrophe would be dropped in some transliterations, but the addition of the "u" is right out, as it would dramatically change the pronunciation.”
    [Kraken] - (Name): “No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Timothy] - (Name): “Ok.”
    [Green Anchor] - (Device): “One of the distinctive characteristics of a carrack is a towering forecastle which projects well forward of the stem. This ship looks more like a galleon with its low set-back forecastle and well-developed beakhead. BTW, that tiny rudder is probably insufficient for manageable steering. All in all though, this is a better drawn ship than most. I suggest reblazoning either as a galleon or as simply a ship. Oh yeah, its not really in "full sail" as the spritsail is clearly furled, but that's doubtless being too nitpicky.”
    [Kraken] - (Device): “This appears to conflict with Trimaris (Kingdom of), badge for the Order of the Golden Galleon (Feb 96): "Azure, a galleon Or." There being generally no difference between ships, the only CD is for the trimount.”
    [Sommelier] - (Device): “I think the ship is in an unblazonable position. "Issuant from" doesn't quite describe the way the cloud/trimount covers part of the ship.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “Possible conflict: Trimaris, Kingdom of. 2/96, Trimaris, for Order of the Golden Galleon. "Azure, a galleon Or." Is there a CD between "a galleon" and "a carrack in full sail pennons flying"? I would suggest not, but I'm not precisely sure how a galleon is drawn, in comparison to the ship on this submission.”

    ACTION: Name Passed as Sabiha al-Zarqa. Device Returned for conflict with Trimaris, Kingdom of. 2/96, Trimaris, for Order of the Golden Galleon. "Azure, a galleon Or." 1 CD for the trimount, but nothing for the fact that the ship is issuant from the trimount.

  17. Thomas Edward Dudley. Change of Registered Device. Per pale argent and sable, three bars counterchanged.

  18. Dragonsspine, Barony of His name was registered May of 2000 via Caid. It was changed on that letter from Seth Alexander Kygheley. His current device, "Argent ermined azure, an oak tree proper issuant from a base sable", was registered in December of 1993 via Ansteorra. If this new device gets registered, he would like his old device to be released.

    [Kraken] - (Device): “This is effectively identical to "Barry and per pale argent and sable." No conflicts found through 3/2001 either way.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “No conflicts found. Clear of Christina McCarty ("Per Pale argent and sable, three butterflies counterchanged") by virtue of being simple heraldry.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “This heraldry is very modernistic in appearance. Perhaps the bars could be made Gules or Azure. That would lessen the ‘MOD’ or “Pop-art” appearance.”

    ACTION: Device Passed.

  19. Thorvaaldr Frirsverth. New Name and Device. Per pale sable and Or, two swords in saltire surmounted by a sword inverted all counterchanged, a chief enarched per pale erminois and pean.

  20. Nahrun Kabirun, Shire of No that is not a typo. His name was submitted as "Thorvaaldr". The documentation provided was from Geirr Bassi, "Þorvaldr", one "a", page 16. The client simply put on his form that "Thorvaaldr" is a variant spelling of "Þorvaldr" with no additional documentation to support why it is a reasonable period variant of the name. Any help there would be appreciated. "Frirsverth" is a byname constructed by the client from elements documented in An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English by Ernest Weekley, Dover Publications, New York. Page 598, under the heading "free" gives the Old Norse spelling "frir" (only in compounds). Page 1460, under the heading "sword" gives the Old Norse spelling as "sverth". Additional documentation is provided from A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic by Geir T. Zoëga, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Page 421, starting with the heading "sverð" (sword), lists multiple examples of compounds using "sverð". "sverðberari = sword bearer", "sverðfetill = sword strap", "sverðfiskr = sword fish", "sverðbot = sword fragments", "sverðegg = sword's edge", "sverðhjölt = sword hilt", "sverðhögg = sword stroke", "sverðskálpr = scabbard", "sverðskór = the chape of the scabbard", "sverðskreið = sword cutlery", "sverðsoddr = point of a sword", "sverðtaka = sword taking (a token of homage)" "sverðtakari = sword taker (a king's man)" I believe the client is confusing "Free sword" with the medieval term "Free lance". "Lance" being a group of soldiers and "Free", in this context, meaning that they are not currently in anyone's service, i.e. available for hire. The byname is probably registerable, but the client's own documentation does not support the construction he submitted. It should be "Sverðfrir". The client wishes his name to be authentic for 11th century Swedish. If the name must be changed, he is most interested in the language/culture, followed by the meaning, followed by the sound. He will not accept major changes. The device does not appear to have any conflicts. The only possible problem is the odd way in which the swords are crossed in saltire. The artist seemed more interested in making the sword hilts look like a broken circle than in truly crossing the swords in saltire. Should it be redrawn, or is this registerable?

    [Green Anchor] - (Name): “Can offer nothing on the given name. I agree that the byname is not properly supported, but do note that the epithets in Geirr Bassi mostly have the adjective followed by the noun as we see here.”
    [Kraken] - (Name): “The given name's submitted spelling may be justifiable as an Anglicization of a variant found in Lind (Norsk-Islandska Dopnamn ock Fingerade Namn fran Medeltiden), col. 1212 under {TH}orvaldr: in the fifth line of the entry we find "{TH}orv{aa}lldr DI III 420 (1388, Avskr.)" which we think means this variant is dated to 1388. The '{aa}' stands for a digraph in the book which is simply two lowercase a's conjoined. Substituting "Th" for an initial thorn is common for Anglicizations after 1200, and separating the conjoined a's as well would yield "Thorvaaldr." Nevertheless it is a highly unusual variant and our surmise may not be accurate. We recommend "Thorvaldr" with just one A, as that is the common Anglicization of the canonical (and by far most common) spelling of the given name. As for the byname, we share Rampart's concerns about the order of the elements, but are not sure that "Sver{dh}frir" is registerable either, as it does not fit the pattern of "sver{dh} + (noun)" shown in all the other examples.”
    [Timothy] - (Name): “I do not agree with Rampart's proposal that this should be "Sver{funky d letter}frir." That would be "Sword-free," according to Rampart's examples. I would propose "Frirsver{funky d letter}," but would ask someone better with Norse/Viking names, foremostly.”
    [Citadel] - (Name): “This is insufficient documentation of the ‘aa’ variant to be registerable and we concur with Lord Rampart on the lack of documentaion of the byname as well. This must be returned for insufficient support.”
    [Rampart] - (Name): “Since writing that “Freelance” is a medieval term, I have come to discover that it is actually a modern literary invention. There are no citations of its use in the OED previous to 1820. Since “Freelance” is not period, and no evidence has been provided for “Freesword” as a period term, it seems reasonable to assume that “Freesword” is also not period. The client failed to provide evidence, and none has since turned up, that any adjective like “free” was used in conjunction with the word “sword”, or any other weapon, in Scandinavian names. I contacted Lindorm Erikson (Christer Romson) for more advice regarding the name. He has done research on Swedish names and produced web articles on the subject. He said “An authentic 11th century Scandinavian name would be written with runes. Latin letters were not used at all in Scandinavia at that time as far as we know. Any Latin letter spelling will necessarily imply some more or less arbitrary transliteration. I'd argue against the double a if he prefers authentic.” The documentation Kraken found included "{TH}orv{aa}lldr DI III 420 (1388, Avskr.)" which we think means this variant is dated to 1388.” Lindorm says “Not quite. "Avskr." means copy, so the this is a later copy of a 1388 original. The aa-ligature could be something introduced in the copy. Anyway, the only spelling that makes sense for 11th century Swedish is with a single "a".” Kraken: “Substituting "Th" for an initial thorn is common for Anglicizations after 1200” Lindorm: “And for most of Scandinavia. I consider "Th" and thorn interchangable. Especially since we're dealing with a transliteration of the thorn-rune. So "Thorvaldr" would (in my opinion) be excellent as an 11th century Swedish male given name, but "Frirsverth" will have to be changed, I'm afraid. The proceedings of KWHS in Nordmark (AS XXXIV) happens to have an article on bynames from the Scandinavian runic inscriptions. I think it also is on-line at The Academy of Saint Gabriel's site. I'd be happy to help with a runic spelling of the name, if the client is interested. Heck, I'll send him photos (or Xeroxes of printed copies of photos) of the inscriptions with the names if he chooses an authentic byname.”
    [al-Jamal] - (Device): “We do not normally allow long skinny charges (like swords) to be counterchanged along their long axis. "There was discussion as to whether the mace was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis. Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability - such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged like this." (Elsbeth Anne Roth, LoAR August 2000, p. 12)”
    [Green Anchor] - (Device): “The arrangement of the swords may be a bit "cute", but don't think it's unregisterable as it is.”
    [Kraken] - (Device): “This may fall afoul of the ban on counterchanging long skinny objects across a line of division that runs down the charge's center longways. In addition, swords crossed in saltire generally cross nearer the center than these; the apparent emphasis on the hilts forming an almost-circle does obscure the identifiability of the charges. This should be returned for a redraw and redesign, recommending perhaps that the swords should be rotated so that one is fesswise rather than palewise, which would eliminate the skinny-counterchange problem.”
    [Sommelier] - (Device): “The device is not registerable because the counterchanging ? there has long been a ban a counterchanging long skinning objects along their long axis. I didn't find a specific precedent against swords counterchanged, but consider these Elsbeth precedents: [Per bend azure and argent, two keys in saltire, wards to base, counterchanged ...] One of the keys is counterchanged along its axis, thus making it unidentifiable. [Tessa da Rimini, 09/99, R-Ansteorra] [a column counterchanged] Laurel precedent has long forbidden counterchanging long skinny objects along its long axis. [Octavia Columella, 01/00, R-Atlantia] [a mace ? counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis. Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability ? such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged like this. [Balthasar van Maldeghem, 08/00, R-Atlantia]”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “I don't think the device is returnable. I hadn't even noticed the "broken circle" until Rampart pointed it out.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “The 3rd sword loses its identifiability because it is too narrow to counterchange and still really recognize.”

    ACTION: Name Returned for insufficient documentation for Frirsverth as a period term or byname. Device Returned for counterchanging a long skinny object along the line of division.

  21. Uilliam MacMillan. Device Resubmission. (K) Sable, a bear rampant and a catamount rampant addorsed between in pale an arrow fesswise and an arrow fesswise to sinister argent.

  22. Unser Hafen, Barony of His name is currently in submission. It will be reviewed by Laurel on October 13. His previous device submission, "Per pale, sable and argent, a bear rampant and a catamount rampant addorsed between in pale an arrow fesswise and an arrow fesswise to sinister counterchanged", was returned from Kingdom in April/May of 2001 because Rampart mistakenly believed that there were two weirdnesses. One being two different beasts addorsed and the other being two different directions of arrows. Neither one of those constitutes a weirdness. The device should have been returned for a redraw. The catamount was conjoined to the line of division and the arrows were way too small. The arrows are still too small, and the black used on the forms was filled in using a black colored pencil. Parts of it were not true black. That has been a cause for return in the past. Uilliam's herald assures me that a redraw will be sent shortly. If there are no other problems, this will be sent to Laurel in December after I get the new forms. I found no conflicts.

    [al-Jamal] - (Device): “An arrow fesswise has its point to sinister by default. We need to reblazon the arrows: *... between in pale an arrow fesswise reversed and an arrow fesswise*....”
    [Green Anchor] - (Device): “Since the default for a fesswise arrow is point to sinister ("incoming"), these ought to be blazoned as "...an arrow point to dexter and another point to sinister..." The bear and catamount, especially in the same tincture, do suggest "sword and dagger", but I'd buck it up to the next level for a ruling on that.”
    [Kraken] - (Device): “The first "rampant" can be omitted from the blazon. This is NOT X.2-simple, having three different charge types directly on the field. No conflicts found through 3/2001 nonetheless.”
    [Sommelier] - (Device): “Reblazon: <- an arrow fesswise reversed and and arrow fesswise> -- by default an arrow is point to base, thus -IIRC - an arrow fesswise has it's point to sinister.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “I would reblazon "... and an arrow fesswise reversed argent." Assuming the redraw arrives, I would pass it.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “Reblazon “Sable, a bear and a catamount both rampant and addorsed between an arrow and an arrow fesswise reversed Argent””

    ACTION: Device Passed as Sable, a bear rampant and a catamount rampant addorsed between in pale an arrow fesswise reversed and an arrow fesswise argent.

  23. Unser Hafen, Barony of. Badge Resubmission (K) for the Archer of Unser Hafen. Vert, a portcullis and in base a pheon inverted Or.

  24. The previous badge submission for the Archer of Unser Hafen, "(Fieldless) A portcullis and in base a pheon inverted Or", is being returned on the October 2001 Letter of Response below. All elements on a fieldless badge must be conjoined. The Barony sought to fix this problem by placing the charges on a green field, but they ended up with a new problem. This new badge conflicts with a badge from the Kingdom of Atenveldt, "Vert, a portcullis Or." There is just 1 CD for the secondary charge.

    [Green Anchor] - (Badge): “The fact that the two charges are (barely) conjoined needs to be either blazoned or altered. Now that this is a fielded badge, they may be completely separate.”
    [Kraken] - (Badge): “The two charges are close enough in size that they might be considered co-primaries. This does not help the conflict with Atenveldt's badge, and in fact introduces another conflict with Kirk of Wendarrow (Jul 71): "Vert, a pheon inverted Or," with just one CD for adding the portcullis!”
    [Timothy] - (Badge): “Return it for the conflict Rampart cited. The charges are also drawn conjoined, as least to my eye.”
    [Citadel] - (Badge): “This is a VERY awkward-looking piece of heraldry non considering the conflict cited by Lord Rampart. We suggest “Argent, upon a portcullis Vert, a Pheon inverted Or”. Another possibility would be “(Fieldless) Upon a Portcullis Vert a Pheon Or”. Either one would clear the conflict with Atenveldt AND solve the problem of fieldless conjoining - besides, they’d look better, too.”

    ACTION: Badge Returned for conflict with the badge from Atenveldt mentioned in the LoP.

  25. Unser Hafen, Barony of. Order Name Resubmission (K) for the Order of the Prima Lux.

  26. The previous order name submission, "Order of the Lux Cataractœ of Unser Hafen", was returned from Kingdom in October 1999 for not following any known models of Order names and for lack of evidence that a portcullis can emit light. No documentation was provided for this resubmission. It is intended to be Latin for "First Light". It is awarded to children who show great promise. It still doesn't follow any known models of Order names. The badge, "(Fieldless) On a portcullis vert a torch Or" was pended awaiting a name. It should have been sent to Laurel and been registered under the Barony's name.

    [al-Jamal] - (Order Name): “RfS III.3.b.ii. notes that "Names of orders and awards must follow the patterns of the names of period orders and awards. These are often the names of saints; others are similar to sign names (see RfS III.2.a.iii). Some examples are: the *Order of Saint Michael*, the *Order of Saint Maurice and Saint Lazarus*, the *Brethren of the Sword*, the *Order of the Garter*, *La Toison d'Or* (the *Order of the Golden Fleece*), the *Order of the Golden Rose*, the *Order of the Star*, the *Order of the Swan*, *La Orden de la Jara* (the *Knights of the Tankard*), the *Order of Lilies*." As the ILoP notes, the submitted name follows none of these patterns (or of any of the patterns of period order names found in the article "Period Order Names" in the Proceedings of the 2001 KWHS (a survey of 219 period orders).”
    [Kraken] - (Order Name): “This name does not follow any period order naming practice we're aware of. Names for children's orders are tough to do if you insist on making some reference to their youth so we recommend forgetting that part and just going for some period-style name that they like.”
    [Timothy] - (Order Name): “This is returnable under our current rules, but I believe the College of Arms should take a good look at its practices regarding Order Names. It's taken some 8 years and 4 tries to register an Order Name for Dragonsspine's archery award, for example, despite some fairly competent heralds (including myself) trying to dream up passable names. I still don't agree with Laurel/Pelican's argument that "Order of the Dragon's Pheon" is unregisterable on the basis of a guess as to what items (a pheon is purportedly not among them) a mythical creature (a dragon) would have in its horde. Our rules almost command that "Order of the " or "Order of the " be used, and many (most?) of those are now taken by the sixteen kingdoms, 7 principalities, and 300-odd baronies in the Known World. (End of rant.)”
    [Citadel] - (Order Name): “Firstly, it should be “Lux Prima” since, in Latin, the adjectives follow the noun. Regarding period Order names, we offer the following list of period order names in defense of the name “Order of the Lux Prima” meaning “Order of the First Light”: 1. Order of the Red Star, Bohemia 1217; 2. Order of the White Elephant, Denmark 1190; 3. Order or the Yellow String, France 1606; 4. Order of the Flower in the Husk - France 1234; 5. Order of the Stocking - Venice 737; 6. Order of the Ear of Corn and Ermine - Brittany 1381; Also, we offer the following Citadel Baronial order names as additional support: 1. Order of the Lux Austrelis; 2. Order of the Flos Austrelis; 3. Order of the Austrum Austrelis; 4. Order of the Calix Honoris; 5. Order of the Ensis Honoris . We see no difference between “Order of the First Light” and any of the above period or Baronial order names. We, therefore, support the name in its corrected, Latin form.”
    [Kraken] - (Badge): “We hope that the badge will be forwarded on to Laurel without waiting for the order name, which we suspect might take some time to hash out. We found no conflicts with it other than those owned by this Barony already.”
    [Timothy] - (Badge): “Send in Unser Hafen's badge which was mistakenly pended.”

    ACTION: Order Name Returned for not following any known models of Order names. Badge Passed.

  27. Zoraya of Navarre. New Device. Purpure, a natural tiger couchant guardant Or marked sable between two gardenia blossoms in bend sinister argent, a bordure Or.

  28. Caer Galen, Shire of Her name was registered in February of 2001 via the Outlands. A change of registered name submission was sent to Laurel in October of 2001 to change the name to Zoraya de Navarre.

    [Kraken] - (admin-fu): “Since the name change has gone to Laurel, this should be listed under the proposed new name (Zoraya de Navarre), not that this would likely make any difference in its placement on the LoI.”
    [Green Anchor] - (Device): “The flowers will not, I think, be recognizable as gardenias. I find their arrangement pretty unbalanced, and wonder if the client considered using three of them in the classic two and one arrangement.”
    [Kraken] - (Device): “No conflicts found through 3/2001.”
    [Timothy] - (Device): “No conflict found.”
    [Citadel] - (Device): “This is really pushing the complexity limits and we would like to register our continued objections to the use of the term ‘natural’ when referring to any heraldic charge. Either we are practicing heraldry or ‘natural’ art, but you can’t do both.”

    ACTION: Device Passed.

Line Emblazon Page
Color Emblazon Page

October 2001 Letter of Presentation
December 2001 Letter of Intent
April 2002 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page.