Last modified: October 20, 2011
Outlands College of Heralds
October 5, 2011 From the Office of the Castle Herald
Sayyidah Khalidah bint Yahya'a
Unto the Outlands College of Heralds, our respected friends and colleagues who give freely of their time to provide commentary, and all others who come by these letters, on this 5th day of October, A.S. XLV (2011 CE), does Sayyidah Khalidah bint Yahya'a send greetings on behalf of Sheik Omar Mohammud Mirzazadeh, White Stag Principal Herald. We would like to thank Baron Randal Carrick for his continued assistance and words of wisdom.
It would assist Castle Herald greatly in the future if you would e-mail a copy of the documentation summary for name submissions along with the paper copies. It saves having to re-type everything again. Also, please be sure that you include dates of registration and return for armory for previously registered names and resubmissions of any kind. If Castle can't find where an item was returned, it may be pended until the information is provided or payment is made for a new submission.
Here follows the Kingdom of the Outlands Letter of Presentation for October 2011. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome. Errors found herein are my sole responsibility. Anyone may comment upon the items found herein, and e-mail commentary to the herald's commentary list is encouraged. Please have comments on items contained herein to Rampart Herald by November 15, 2011, for the decision meeting tentatively scheduled for November 16, 2011. As a reminder, the College of Arms requests commentary on all items, including appeals.
Line Emblazon Sheet
Color Emblazon Sheet
October 2011 Letter of Presentation
November 2011 Letter of Response
November 2011 Letter of Intent
February 2012 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page
Anthoni Domingo de Zaragoza. New Name and Device. Per fess wavy sable and
vert, an axe fesswise reversed blade to base argent handled Or and a griffon
segreant Or headed and winged argent.
(Caerthe) Gender: Male. Submitter cares most about spelling and language/culture, 'mid to late 1300 Kingdom of Aragon/Spain'. Submitter will accept changes for authenticity to 1300s Kingdom of Aragon/Spain but will NOT accept MAJOR changes.
[Anthoni] - "Catalan Names from 15th Century Barcelona" by Sara L. Uckelman (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/spanish/15thcbarcelona.html)
[Domingo] - 'Población y censos historicós de Blesa' (http://www.blesa.info/hiscenso.htm)
[de Zaragoza] - 'Población y censos historicós de Blesa' (http://www.blesa.info/hiscenso.htm)
2. Broddi hornabrjótr. Name Resubmission (Laurel) and Device Resubmission (Kingdom). Per fess indented vert and sable, four bear pawprints argent.
(Dragonsspine) Gender: Male. Submitter cares most about the sound and will accept changes.
Name returned on the February 2008 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2008/02/08-02lar.html) stating the following:
Precedent requires that descriptive bynames in Old Norse may only be registered in all lowercase letters. We would change the name to Broddi hornabrótr, but the submitter will accept no changes. Therefore, we are forced to return this name.
Device, Per fess dancetty vert and sable, overall two bear paws argent, returned on the October 2007 LoR (http://rampart.outlandsheralds.org/2007-09-lop/0710-lor.html) stating the following:
This device is returned for redraw. The line division is too deep to be considered "dancetty", and the bear-paws are not drawn in a heraldic style. The client is urged to either deepen the division and make it "pily", or make the division more shallow, and continue with "dancetty". As for the bear paws, the client is urged to draw them like the paws in the Pictorial Dictionary or the Pennsic Traceable Art sheets.
Submitter has cleared the issues by changing the byname to lower case and redrawing the device with a much shallower line of division.
[Broddi] - The Old Norse Name, 1st Edition by Geirr Bassi Haraldsson, pg. 9
[hornabrjotr] - The Old Norse Name, 1st Edition by Geirr Bassi Haraldsson, pg. 23 - meaning 'horn-breaker'
3. Elionora Brenan. Appeal of Device Return (Laurel). Per chevron azure and argent, two oak leaves Or and a mullet voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet sable.
Appeal of the device return of Elionora Brenan - Device returned on March 2010 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2010/03/10-03lar.html)
We are appealing the return of Elionora Brenan (Returned on March 2010 LoAR): Elionora Brenan. Device. Per chevron azure and argent, two oak leaves Or and a mullet voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet sable. This device is returned for using three types of charge in a single group.
On the Cover Letter to the March 2009 LoAR, it was ruled that :
when a charge within an annulet is not alone on the field, they are considered part of the same group. Therefore the primary charge group in this submission consists of three types of charge: leaf, mullet and annulet.
This was ruled a violation of section VII.1.a of the Rules for Submissions, which states that “three or more types of charges should not be used in the same group”.
We believe the return is defective on the following grounds:
1. As a visual matter, the ‘mullet within an annulet’ it appears as one unit, having the same color and texture throughout, so it is inappropriate to even consider calling the assemblage a charge group under VII.1.a. It should be considered one charge.
2. A Pentacle is a widely recognized item with a well-known descriptive name. The average person – and heraldic artist – would easily be able to produce a drawing of the object meant by the word. The word ‘pentacle’ dates to our period; Oxford Dictionaries dates the word to the late 16th century (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pentacle?region=us ). An alternative spelling, ‘pentangle’, is cited to a Middle English origin in the same source (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pentangle?region=us). Now that there is no taint of illegality, one of the simpler, period terms should prevail. A single, named object is logically treated as a single charge for purposes of VII.1.a.
3. Even if it is found that ‘Pentacle’ is not a sufficiently descriptive term (meaning just the mullet voided and interlaced without the annulet, as appears to have been the case in period) and therefore must be blazoned by parts, it does not follow that these parts must be considered separate charges when they are an obviously recognizable visual unit. Many examples exist of items which are viewed as single charges which could just as legitimately be viewed as conjoined charges. For instance, a winged monster is considered one charge even though wings and monsters may be described as separate terms. A Celtic cross, always viewed as a single charge, could as well be viewed as an annulet conjoined to the arms of a latin cross.
The blazon of the charge as a ‘mullet voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet’ is unnecessary and misleading. It has been acknowledged that this is also a synonym for the familiar ‘pentacle’ . The two names (‘mullet voided and interlaced’ whether ‘within and conjoined to an annulet’ or not, and ‘pentacle’) have been synonymous throughout SCA heraldry. There is no precedent or rule we can find requiring the object to be blazoned ‘by parts’. It was perhaps blazoned as ‘a mullet voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet’ to avoid (unsuccessfully) the prior ban on pentacles; however, even if this was the reason, it is no longer necessary.
Using the common term would then obviously make it a single item, readily identifiable, and thus registerable. There is no barrier to registering this charge by its common name, if the name was ever the issue, as it was legalized in the Laurel letter of March 2009.
The return was based on a rule from March 2009  which considered whether a ‘charge within an annulet’ is a member of a single charge group or two different groups. The College answered that they belong to the same charge group. Note that although the March 2009 decision clarifies that a charge within an annulet are members of one charge group, not several, the decision does not preclude the object and its containing annulet being considered the same charge (as opposed to a group of two charges in one charge group). We believe the fact that the annulet is conjoined to and the same color as the mullet argues that on visual grounds, common understanding, and past SCA precedent, the object should be considered a single charge. We would also argue for blazoning it simply as a ‘pentacle’, rather than the needlessly convoluted ‘mullet voided and interlaced within and conjoined to an annulet’, but maintain that the blazon is immaterial; the object should be considered a single charge regardless of how it is blazoned.
We thus plead that the device be reconsidered and the return reversed.
Maistre Louis-Philippe Mitouard, OP, OL, Catspaw Herald Extraordinary, White Stag Principal Herald emeritus, Kingdom of the Outlands
Maestra Francesca di Pavia, OP, OL, Castle Herald emerita, Kingdom of the Outlands
 March 2009 LoAR: From Wreath: Charges Within Annulets On the November 24 LoPaD, we pended a device using a charge within an annulet which was not the central design in the device. Several questions were asked at that time, and the College has answered. A widget within an annulet will continue to be considered a primary widget and a secondary annulet, or a primary annulet and secondary widget, when those charges are the only charges on the field. Which of the two charges is primary depends, as always, on the emblazon. When both are present in a design as part of a primary charge group, or where they would be expected to be a secondary charge, the widget and annulet will both be considered part of the same group. These answers do not depend on the types of charges in question. Heralds should note that using a widget within an annulet is not a step from period practice. Multiple instances of items within a single or multiple concentric annulets appear in Stemmario Trivulziano (plates 178, 194, 225, and 352), Siebmacher (plates 63, 152, and 156), Humphrey-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory Two (page 335), and other heraldic references.
 March 2009 LoAR: “There is a long history of rulings regarding the unregisterability of mullets voided and interlaced (also known as pentacles or pentagrams), beginning as early as 1973 by Ioseph of Locksley and including rulings or correspondence in 1976, 1978, 1979, 1990, 1994, and 1996. The ruling in 1990 was appealed to the Board of Directors, as reflected and discussed on the April 1991 Cover Letter. As specified in that Cover Letter, the primary argument against the registerability of this charge was that "the device was not returned for its specific religious content as perceived by the submitter and her co-religionists, but for the specific anti-religious content as perceived by a far larger number of people, both within and without the SCA." The 1996 ruling was an appeal of a return from 1994, and after considering the various arguments, the then Laurel King of Arms, Da'ud ibn Auda, felt "compelled to uphold the prior precedents disallowing the registration of mullets of five points voided and interlaced, whether within and conjoined to an annulet or standing by themselves. [Based on the evidence presented], such charges still are perceived by a significant portion of the population as [a] "satanic symbol", and hence cannot be registered by the College." The current submission presents extensive documentation showing that the pentacle or pentagram is no longer perceived as a specifically satanic symbol. Instead, it has become more closely recognized as a symbol of the Wiccan religion. For example, the US military services have acknowledged the Wiccan religion in their Chaplain's handbook since at least 1990, and, more recently, the association of the pentacle with the Wiccan religion was acknowledged by the US government when the pentacle became the Wiccan religious symbol allowed on the government-furnished headstones of fallen US soldiers.
We received a large amount of commentary on this submission from the College, and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of dropping the ban on this charge. We hereby overturn the ruling from 1996, and allow the registration of mullets voided and interlaced, both inverted and not, and both conjoined to annulets and not, so long as the overall design in which this charge is used does not otherwise violate RfS IX.2 Offensive Religious Symbolism.
4. Hasanah bint Khalil al Najar. Change of Holding Name from Jane of Bright Hills and Change of Device. Or, a horse courant sable, a chief dancetty sable, three compass stars argent.
(Dragonsspine) Gender: Female. Submitter will accept changes.
Holding Name and Current Device, Or, a raven and on a chief embattled sable, two quill pens in saltire argent, were registered on the July 1990 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1990/07/lar.html) via Atlantia.
bint Khalil] - "Period Arabic Names and Naming Practices" by Da'ud ibn Auda (David B.
The name follows the for ism + nasab + occupational nisba as found in "Period
[al Najar] - translates to "the carpenter" or "the woodworker". Documentation of this can be found on page 1108 of the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (J.M. Cowan, editor). Even though the dictionary deals with "modern" Arabic, it is the language of the Koran and changes very little over time, so this should still be a valid translation for a period word/occupation.
Submitter desires to release the previous device.
5. Iul'ianiia Sverchek. New Name and Device. Argent, in pale three crickets statant sable.
(Dragonsspine) Gender: Female. The submitter cares most about the meaning, 'Russian - Cricket', and will accept changes.
[Iul'ianiia] - 'Dictionary of Period Russian Names' by Paul Goldschmidt (http://heraldry.sca.org/paul/h-j.html), dated 13th-14th c.
[Sverchek] - 'Dictionary of Period Russian Names' by Paul Goldschmidt (http://heraldry.sca.org/paul/sp.html), Russian for "cricket"
6. Khalidah bint Yahya'a. Change of Device. Argent, a quill pen sinister sable and a base engrailed azure.
(Caer Galen) Submitter's name and current device, Per chevron sable and argent, two tassels and a scimitar counterchanged, were registered on the May 2006 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2006/05/06-05lar.html) via the Outlands.
Submitter desires to retain previous device as a badge.
7. Máel Mide ingen Domhnaill. New Name and Device. Quarterly vert and sable, a dragonfly and a deer hoof print argent.
(Dragonsspine) Gender: Female. Submitter cares most about the language/culture and sound, '9th Century Scottish, given name sound "ma-la-VEEN"' and will accept changes.
Form: given name + <ingen> (female patronymic connector) + father's name. "Simple Guide to Constructing 12th Century Scottish Caelic Names" by Sharon L. Krossa (http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/names/simplescotgaelicnames12.htm)
[Máel Mide] - "Index of Names in Irish Annals: Máel Mide/Maol Mheadha" by Kathleen M. O'Brien (http://medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/Feminine/MaelMide.shtml)
"Part 68 of Annals of the Four Masters" (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100005A/text068.html)
[Domhnaill] - "Part 62 of Annals of the Four Masters" (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100005A/text062.html)
8. Millicent of Essex. New Name and Device. Per chevron azure and argent, two viols Or, affronte with necks in saltire and in a base a tulip gules slipped and leaved vert.
(Villaleon) Gender: Female. Submitter cares most about language/culture and will accept changes.
[Millicent] - "Feminine Given Names in A Dictionary of English Surnames" by Brian M. Scott (http://s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/reaney.cgi?Millicent)
[Essex] - Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193192/Essex)
9. Myhell Ruadh. Device Resubmission (Laurel). Barry azure and argent, a shark urinant Or and on a chief wavy Or three fish skeletons gules.
(Citadel of the Southern Pass) Submitter's name was registered on the July 2007 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/07/07-07lar.html) via the Outlands.
Device, Barry azure and argent, a shark urinant Or, on a chief wavy argent three herrings haurient sinister gules, was returned on the February 2010 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2010/02/10-02lar.html) with the following:
This device is returned for violating the so-called "sword and dagger" rule. The most recent precedent on this practice says:
While it is acceptable to use the same charge as both a primary (or secondary) charge and a tertiary charge, using a similar charge is not acceptable for exactly the reasons discussed in the September 1993 Cover Letter. We hereby overturn the February 2003 precedent and restore the September 1993 precedent. Due to the armorial identification problems caused by using similar but not identical charges in two different charge groups, this practice is no longer allowed. [Desiderata Drake, March 2007, R-Æthelmearc]
Since sharks are considered to be a blazonable but not countable difference from herrings, this device suffers from the same issue.
Submitter cleared the conflict by choosing fish skeletons rather than fish to replace the herrings.
10. Yasamin al-Hadiyya. New Device. Purpure, a senmurv within eight octofoils in annulo Or.
(Dragonsspine) Submitter's name was registered on the April 2010 LoAR (http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2010/04/10-04lar.html) via Drachenwald.
Thus ends the October 2011 Letter of Presentation.
Color Emblazon Sheet
October 2011 Letter of Presentation
November 2011 Letter of Response
November 2011 Letter of Intent
February 2012 LoAR Results
Return to the Rampart home page