Greetings to All,
The Armorial has been updated to reflect the items in this LOAR.
Vert Hawk Herald
Makrae appears in 1639 in Scotland via the Family Search Historical Records. In period Scots, the spellings Mak- and Mac- were used more or less interchangeably. Therefore, the name can be registered as submitted.
Artist's note: We recommend making the outline of the fess of similar weight to the outline of the other charges, to avoid the appearance of fimbriation. We also recommend making the dragon larger, to fill the available space on the fess.
There is a step from period practice for the use of an Oriental dragon.
This group name was documented on the Letter of Intent as constructed from Danish/Old Norse, based on Amlethus, the name of a semi-mythical character that appears in Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. However, there were multiple problems with the proposed construction, including the fact that there was no evidence that the name Amlethus was used by real people in either Old Norse or Danish.
However, Lillia Pelican Emerita was able to construct Amlethsmor from Middle English elements. The pattern of English place names based on [byname in genitive] + [generic toponymic term] is found in Juliana de Luna's "Compound Placenames in English" (http://medievalscotland.org/jes/EnglishCompoundPlacenames/). Therefore, this name is registerable.
There is a step from period practice for use of lightning bolt without a thunderbolt.
Batonvert provided ample evidence to demonstrate that hooved jambes are palewise, hoof to base, by default in period heraldry.
Artist's note: Please draw the mullet larger to fill the available space.
Nice 15th century Gaelic name!
This device is clear of Esla of Ifeld, Argent, a chevron vert between three acorns proper, all within a bordure sable, with one DC for change in type of secondary charges and another DC for change in tincture of the same group.
There is a step from period practice for the use of the dragon displayed.
Artist's note: Make sure that the belly scales are in the center of the body, with flanks showing on either side and with the limbs displayed equally, to be more properly displayed.
Nice Anglicized Irish name for c. 1600!
In the defining instance of "a set of seraph's wings," registered to the Barony of the Angels in the January 2008 LoAR, the wings were depicted with two pairs of wings spread, and the last pair crossed in base, as depictions of standing seraphs (a charge unique to the SCA) frequently show. The second registration of the charge, to the same territory, depicted all three sets of wings spread (mostly to give space for the mullet of six points to show). As this depiction of seraph's wings has both the top and bottom pairs of wings crossed, commenters raised concerns about the charge not matching the registered form.
The Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry depicts a seraph as a head with three pairs of wings issuant from top, bottom, and sides; the upper and lower pairs of wings are both crossed. This depiction matches Guillim's artwork cited by Bruce Batonvert. Therefore, as long as all six wings are identifiable as pairs, depiction of a set of seraph's wings may either have all wings splayed, or either one or both of the upper and lower pairs crossed.
Nice late 16th century English name!
Artist's note: Please draw the jambe a bit larger.
This device must be returned for having two different charge groups as tertiaries. While a bow and arrow are considered to be a single charge when they are in their standard, expected position, this is not true a bow and needle. Considered as two separate charges, the needle lacks the visual weight of the bow. If these were directly on the field, the bow would be considered the primary charge and the needle a sustained secondary. As tertiary charges the bow and arrow are thus considered to be in separate charge groups. Therefore this runs afoul of SENA Appendix I which states "A single charge group may only have one tertiary charge group on it."
This augmentation must be returned for the use of a unicornate natural seahorse, which was disallowed without use of the Grandfather Clause in the October 2003 Cover Letter. In that letter, it was noted that standard augmentations may be used by submitters to allow them to use the grandfather clause: "It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that the kingdom would have." However, the kingdom would need to designate a standard augmentation in order to do so. As of this writing, the Kingdom of Atlantia has not designated any badge as a standard augmentation, other than (Fieldless) An escallop purpure for children of Atlantean Royalty (a permission that is effectively inapplicable, as neither Royalty nor their progeny hold those positions permanently).
Additionally, the design being used by the submitter is not currently registered to the Kingdom of Atlantia, either as a standard augmentation or as another badge. The closest design is (Fieldless) A unicornate natural seahorse argent finned azure. As the October 2003 Cover Letter states, even if this badge were designated a standard augmentation, it can only be used as-is; adding a field (e.g. an escutcheon, canton, or other charge which did not exist in the original arms) and changing the tincture of the fin each make the augmentation no longer the registered badge, and thus ineligible for the Grandfather Clause.
We reiterate the request from the October 2003 Cover Letter and encourage all kingdoms to designate one or more badges as standard augmentations, and to register those badges which are traditionally used by members of their kingdom who have augmentations of arms, especially if the design or motif is otherwise unregisterable.
The submitter is entitled to an augmentation of arms from Atlantia, granted 8/12/2010.
This device must be returned for violation of SENA A.2.B.4.a, which states that "The use of two [non-European] elements requires the use of the Individually Attested Pattern rules, discussed in A.4. These elements must still be describable in standard SCA heraldic terms." In this case, we have an Oriental dragon and a woman in Chinese-style vestments, neither of which are attested in European armory. Thus this can only be registered if it can be shown to follow a pattern for period armory. Barring such evidence it cannot be registered. The use of Chinese-style vestments will in the future be considered a step from period practice unless documented in period European heraldry. We apologize for not mentioning this issue in the prior return. Had this been the only reason for return, we likely would have registered the device.
However, this device is also returned for violation of SENA A.3.F.5, which requires that blazons be reproducible without heavily detailed blazons. The arm position of the maiden does not follow a standard blazonable posture, nor are the arms arranged in a way that can be easily described (e.g. "arms raised"). Barring evidence that such a posture is found in period armory, this posture cannot be registered.
There may also be an issue with Unity of Posture with the rampant dragon and statant affronty human in the same charge group; we do not choose at this time to address this issue due to the previously mentioned arm placement issue.
This badge must be returned for the use of ululant for a non-canine creature. This dragon's head is tilted to chief, a posture that in wolves we call ululant.
The December 2000 LoAR states:
While we allow wolves and foxes to be ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for return. (Andela Romier, badge: (Fieldless) A mouse sejant ululant to sinister argent.)