This is the November 2004 Middle Kingdom Letter of Acceptances and Returns for Escutcheon’s September 2004 Letter of Intent.

Unless otherwise noted, all clients will accept changes. Comments in braces {} were removed from the Letter of Intent sent to Laurel and the College of Arms. Names, devices, or badges in braces have been returned or pended. Commentary, rulings, etc. by Rouge Scarpe are placed in small cap print. Thanks to Canute, Ana Lynch, Caitriona mac Dhonnachaidh, Mikhail and AElfreda (M & A), the Southwest Ohio Consulting Consortium (Ohio), Master John ap Wynne, Ary, and Master Talan Gwynek for this month’s commentary.

Marchers Keep – Group Name and Device – pended from the September 2004 LoAR

Returned for lack of proper number of copies.

1) Geertruyt Robertsdochter (F) -- New Name
(Baile na Scholairi)

Client wishes authenticity for 14th -16th century Dutch/Flemish

[Geertruyt] -- Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15^th Century Dutch Names” http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15.html lists "Geertruyt c. 1478-81"

[Robertsdochter] -- Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15^th Century Dutch Names” http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15surnames.html sites "Robbert c. 1518" and an example of "Ghijsbrechtsdochter c. 1478-81"

. In a side note written in client's handwritting: "example of a patronymic naming as a daughter."

Client will not accept major changes

Commentary

Talan - > [Robertsdochter] -- Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15th Century Dutch Names” http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15surnames.html sites "Robbert c. 1518"

It does not; it has <Robbertszoon> 1478-81. The forename <Robbert> is cited from 1518 (*not* c. 1518) on the page <http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15.html>.

The evidence offered clearly supports <Robbertsdochter>; neither page has a form of the patronym with just one <b>. <http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch14.html> also has <Robbert> rather than <Robert>. However, <http://www.s-gabriel.org/docs/bruges/given-list.html> does have <Robert>, four times from 1400-1550 and six times from 1550-1600, so the submitted name is very likely within the range of normal variation ca.1500.

Passed to Laurel

2) Gunnolf Muir (M) -- New Name and Device --Argent, a wolf rampant and on a bordure sable three crosses patonce argent
(Mugmort)

Client wants authenticity for 14th century Scots/Norse.

[Gunnolf] - "Norsk-Islandska Dopnamn," E. H. Lind p. 420 "Gunnfir (header) Gunn-olfuer, -olf 1322 [Muir] - Black, p. 617, under Muir lists [Mur] 1508, [Muyr] 1539, [Mwyr] 1525. [Muir] is a plausible variant spelling.

According to the Pennsic worksheet attached to the paperwork the device has a possible conflict with "potent, a wolf rampant sable", "Per chevron sable and argent, a wolf rampant sable, in a conton s/b canton a plate", "Argent, a saltire purpure, overall a wolf rampant sable", "Argent, a wolf rampant, in chief two roundels sable."

Client will not accept major changes

Name Commentary

Ohio - As regards the name and in relation to #3 (House Muir) we recognized that it was appearing as though the personal name was very likely going to be passed up rebuilt with Talan's suggestions to make it 14th c Scots/Norse, but the household name, lacking that requirement, would go up as is. It seemed logical that the submittor would desire his personal and household names to match. With that in mind I contacted Mugmort Pursuivant (the consulting herald), explained the observation and requested clarification. It appears that the personal name requirement for 14th c Scots/Norse was done without the client having a much of an idea what this entailed or what it really meant. Apparently it seemed like a good idea at the time. In fact, Gunnolf and his House do want the personal and household names to match, and are more interested in keeping the spellings as Gunnolf Muir and House Muir than in any geographic or temporal specification. Therefore, we recommend that this preference be appended to the submissions and they be passed to Laurel as "Gunnolf Muir" and "House Muir", in keeping with the submittors clarified preferences.

John – Gunnolf: I’d be happier if the Norse consultant took care of this, although I’ll go so far as to mention that until the mid-fifteenth century northern Scotland and the outer isles, notably the Orkneys, were under Viking control. Accordingly, it would not be out of place to have a Viking element here. The closest I can document this as a name, however, place or first, is: Haraldsson (p. 10).

Muir: a lot easier, see Darton (pp. 206 – 207) as a place name; also Dorward (p. 253); Grimble (pp. 219-220); Conway (p. 78) as a surname.

Talan - By the 14th century most of Scotland was Gaelic- or Scots-speaking; the exception was the Northern Isles (and I expect adjacent parts of Caithness). With that in mind I searched the on-line Diplomatarium Norvegicum, available at <http://www.dokpro.uio.no/dipl_norv/diplom_field_eng.html>, for 14th century documents involving either Orkney or Shetland to see what sorts of personal names I could find. Unfortunately, document number 404 in volume 1, dated 25 May 1369 and written at what is now Kirkwall in Orkney, was the only one that seemed very useful. It's an agreement 'jmillum virdulex herra ok andelex fadr herra Wilhialms mee gudz nad biscup j Orkneyum ok Hjatlane af æin halfuo ok af annarre halfuo heierlegr man ok vel boren Hakon Jonson' (between the worshipful lord and spiritual father lord Wilhialmr by god's grace bishop in Orkney and Shetland on the one side and on the other side the honorable man and well-born Hakon Jonson), and it names the following islanders:

sira Willialmr af Bucchan erkindiakin j Orkneyum
'archdeacon in Orkney' sira Valter af Bucchan kanugkr j samastae 'canon in the same place'; this is the Walter de Bochane or Bucchan, canon of St. Magnus cathedral in 1369 and archdeacon of Shetland in 1391, mentioned at Black s.n. <Buchan>.

sira Jon proktur 'proctor'
sira Richard af Rollissey
sira Cristen af Teyn
sira Cristen af Sanday; <Sanday> (ON <Sandey> 'sand island') is the modern name of one of the Orkneys.

sira Willialmr wod; probably just 'Wood'.
Thomas arland
Fergus af Rosce 'Ross'
Henri Willialms [1]
Jon af Orkneyum [1]
Willialmr stormr 'storm'

Jon af Boduel 'Bothwell'; he's mentioned at Black s.n.
<Bothwell>.
Jon Robertson
Adam af Mekre [2]
Gudbrand Andrsson

Sighurdr af Pappley; possibly for <Papay> (ON <Papey> 'priests' island'), though I'd not bet on it.

Jon sincler 'John Sinclair'
Patrik kaldar; probably 'Calder'; Black s.n. <Calder> says that this is a Caithness surname.
Dunkan af Karmkors; <Karmkors> probably represents the locative surname treated at Black s.n. <Cairncross>

(e.g., <Duncan de Caryncros> before 1325, <Henri of Carnecors> 1388).
Bube skinner

Willialmr eruin; probably the surname treated at Black s.n. <Irvine>, where <John de Herwyne> 1376, <William de Irwyne> 1324, and <John de Irwyn> 1332 are mentioned.

Jon af Dunray
Olaue skutt

[1] This may be <Henri Wilhialms son af Orkneyum> rather than the pair of names listed above.

[2] The correct reading of the place-name may be <Inckre>.

This is probably a rather atypical collection, since these are all important men; in particular, that fact may account for the large number of 'English' (non-Gaelic, non-Norse) names. Still, it does show a mixture of the three types of names. It also gives a range of types of byname.

> [Gunnolf] - "Norsk-Islandska Dopnamn,"

That's actually 'Norsk-Isländska' ('Norsk-Isla"ndska').

> E. H. Lind p. 420 "Gunnfir (header) Gunn-olfuer, -olf 1322

The headword is <Gunnúlfr> (<Gunnu/lfr>), not <Gunnfir>; the 1322 citation is of the form <Gunnolfuer>; and the form <Gunnolf> is dated to 1382, not to 1322. The 1382 document cited by Lind is available on-line at www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=1602&s=368&str=; it shows that the man in question was named <Gunnolf Salason> and that the document was drawn up at a place called Tangaland; this will have been somewhere in Norway, but I've not found the precise location. Other documents in that collection show extensive communication between Norway and Orkney, so an Orkney <Gunnolf> would not be especially surprising.

> [Muir] - Black, p. 617, under Muir lists [Mur] 1508,

> [Muyr] 1539, [Mwyr] 1525. [Muir] is a plausible variant spelling.

Since the cited spellings aren't even close to the 14th century, it's not at all clear that <Muir> is plausible, and in fact it turns out to be most *implausible* for the 14th century.

The only 14th century example in the citations given by the on-line Dictionary of the Scots Language at <http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/> s.v. <Mure> is <mur> 'moor', from Barbour's 'Bruce' (1375); <muyr> is cited from 1493 (and in the sense 'a tract of open uncultivated ground appropriated to a proprietor or a community; a common; a park' from 1410). The DSL's 14th century examples of it in place-names take the forms <More> and <Mure>. The more abbreviated Concise Scots Dictionary s.v. <muir> dates the earliest noted occurrences of <muir>, <mure>, and <more> (as independent words) to the late 15th, late 14th, and 15th centuries, respectively. Black's 14th century surname citations s.n. <Muir> are <More> 1315-21, 1328-29, <Moire> 1328-29, <Mure> 1347, and <Mwre> 1369.

This last is extremely important: the full citation is for an Adam of Mwre who was juror on inquest in Kirkwall in 1369, and Kirkwall is the principal city of Orkney. Here the place-name <Mwre> can safely be regarded as documentary, and <Adam> is very likely also documentary, since that form is common irrespective of the language of the document, but it's quite possible that Black has changed a documentary <de> or <af)> to <of>; he's given to silent modernization and normalization of this kind. Still, it's a safe bet that the original at least *has* a preposition, as do a great many of the names listed above, and <Adam of Mwre> doesn't seem unlikely as a Scots version of the name. Gregor Lamb, Orkney Surnames (Edinburgh: Paul Harris Publishing, 1980), p.44 says that there is a Muir in Sanday; it's possible that Adam's name refers to this place. (Lamb says some very silly things about the origins of some Orkney surnames, and he silently modernizes all over the place, but I've no reason to doubt his knowledge of Orkney geography.)

On that basis <Gunnolf of Mwre> seems quite reasonable as a Scots form of the name of a 14th century Orkneyman; the case for a <Gunnolf Mwre> (or <More>, <Mure>, or <Moire>) is less clear, given the considerable likelihood that the person would from Orkney, the Shetlands, or the adjacent parts of Caithness, or even originally from Norway, and so less likely to have an asyndetic locative byname (i.e., without the preposition).

Device Commentary

Canute – Clear

Ohio - No conflicts found with the device, and the design was deemed above average.

Ary - This is clear of Dubhghall mac Ã‰bhearÃ¡ird (reg. 03/1997 via Drachenwald), "Argent, a wolf rampant and in chief two roundels sable," one CD for changing the number of secondaries, one for changing the type, and one for adding the tertiaries.

This is clear of Ulrich der Geschwinde von Augsburg (reg. 02/1984 via Meridies), "Argent, a wolf rampant maintaining in its dexter forepaw a sword sable, hilted Or, within a bordure quarterly gules and sable," with one CD for the tincture of the bordure, and one for adding the crosses.

I found nothing else close. This looks clear to me.

Talan - > According to the Pennsic worksheet attached to the paperwork the device has a possible conflict with "potent, a wolf rampant sable",

No conflict: adding a charged border would clear it even if the fields were identical.

> "Per chevron sable and argent, a wolf rampant sable, in a conton s/b canton a plate",

No conflict: there's a CD for field tincture and another for changing the canton to a border.

> "Argent, a saltire purpure, overall a wolf rampant sable",

No conflict. Even if one were (incorrectly) to take the wolf overall as the primary charge and match it with the wolf in the submitted coat, there would be two CDs immediately for type and tincture of secondary charge (saltire purpure vs. bordure sable); on any other interpretation there is even more difference.

> "Argent, a wolf rampant, in chief two roundels sable."

No conflict: changing two roundels to one border is worth two CDs, one each for changing the type and number of secondary charges.

~~********************~~

Name – since the client had marked the No Changes box I contacted him regarding Talan’s suggested name change and he agreed to the change. Therefore, the name will be changed to Gunnolf of Mwre and passed to Laurel.

Device – passed to Laurel.

3) Gunnolf Muir (M) -- New Household Name: House Muir
(Mugmort)

Client wishes Scots (no time period was listed)

[Muir] - Black, p. 617, under Muir lists [Mur] 1508, [Muyr] 1539, [Mwyr] 1525. [Muir] is a plausible variant spelling.

RfS III.2.b.iv says “Household names must follow the patterns of period names of organized groups of people. Possible models include Scottish clans (Clan Stewart ), ruling dynasties ( House of Anjou ), professional guilds ( Bakers Guild of Augsburg , Worshipful Company of Coopers ), military units ( The White Company ), and inns ( House of the White Hart)” and precedent from 12/2002 (Middle-R, Nonna the Midwife) says “Examples of House + [inherited surname] are found in English and other languages in late period. In these cases, the house name refers to the inherited surname shared by members of this family.”

Commentary

Talan - Without the restriction to the 14th century, this is correct. As additional evidence we may note <Muirhed> 1513 and <Muirheyd> 1527 beside <Muyrheyd> 1498 (Black s.n. <Muirhead>). If he wants the name to match his own, as presumably he does, he'll need a different spelling here as well.

Household Name – again, after consultation with the client the household name will be change to House Mwre and passed to Laurel.

4) Gunnolf Muir (M) -- New Household Name: Wolf Company
(Mugmort)

Client cares more for meaning.

[Wolf] - Reaney and Wilson p. 498, "John le Wolf c. 1279"

The OED s.v. company has this spelling dated to 1548-9.

Commentary

Ohio - I think this is, as Talan surmised, a name for a group of fighters who, for some reason, want to sound tough and dangerous. After lengthy explanation of why the submitted construction is not an appropriate period form, the client is unwilling to accept any change to the submission and intends to utilize the company name as is regardless of the registry outcome because they consider themselves too well known by this moniker to effect a change. We therefore leave it to it's fate.

Talan - It's not clear just what justification is being offered for this household name. The citation from Reaney & Wilson looks like an attempt to invoke the 12/2002 precedent quoted above, but since the byname doesn't use the designator <House>, that precedent doesn't apply. (Moreover, the byname <le Wolf> is evidently a personal nickname, not a family name.) The use of <Company> suggests that the intended model is either a guild or a military unit. The name clearly doesn't fit the guild model, so it pretty much has to be justified as the name of a military unit.

Here a relevant precedent is the 4/96 registration of the household name <Shadewes Company> to Olaf Blodhøx (Blodh{o|}x) of the Middle:

<Shadewe> 1314 is an attested surname; <Shadewes Company> is a reasonable name for a military unit organized or commanded by someone with that surname. <Shadow Legion>, returned 5/92 (Ilissa the Nightwatcher, Meridies), exemplifies a different construction, just as Shadewes (i.e., Shadow's) Cabinet is different from a shadow cabinet.

In fact <Shadewe> may be a personal nickname -- it almost certainly is in the case of <Lucas Shadue> 1203 (Reaney & Wilson s.n. <Shade>) -- so this precedent arguably supports a period spelling of <The Wolf's Company>, from which <Wolf's Company> is certainly a very likely step. For that matter, Bardsley s.n. <Wolff> has <Magota Wlfe> 1379 without the article. All that remains is to find a period form. <Company> has already been justified:

> The OED s.v. company has this spelling dated to 1548-9.

The normal possessive suffixes corresponding to modern <'s> were <-es> and, especially in the north, <-is>, <-ys>; the use of the apostrophe to mark possessives isn't found until after 1600 (Fernand Mossé, A Handbook of Middle English, trans. James A. Walker, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1968 [1952], Section 56; Dennis Freeborn, From Old English to Standard English, 2nd ed., Univ. of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, 1998, Section 16.3.1). The OED s.v. <wolf> shows <wolfes> as a form of the possessive found in the 14th through 16th centuries. (There are others, but they're a bit further from <wolf>.)

It therefore appears that <Wolfes Company> ought to be registerable as a 16th century form of a name for a military unit of some kind. <Wolf Company> is rather more problematic; in the absence of any truly comparable model I can't support it.

Household name will be changed to Wolfes Company and passed to Laurel.

{5) Heinrick van der Hooft -- New Name}
(Bailena Scholairi)

[Heinrick] - Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15^th Century Dutch Names” http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15.html lists Heinrick 1478, 1478-81(S), 1481-88, 1518

[van der Hooft] - Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15^th Century Dutch Names” http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15surnames.html lists van der Hoef c. 147-8. The submitted spelling is not dated.

Client cares more for the spelling of [Hooft] but will take [Hoeft] if documentation can't be found.

Client will not accept major changes and cares most about 14-16^th century Dutch/Flemish. Client further states that his family geneology sites ‘Hooft’ to period but he is unable to provide copies.

Commentary

Talan - > [Heinrick] - Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15th Century Dutch Names”

> http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15.html lists Heinrick 1478, 1478-81(S), 1481-88, 1518

Also 1497-1500.

> [van der Hooft] - Aryanhwy merch Catmael’s “15th Century Dutch Names”

> http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15surnames.html lists van der Hoef c. 147-8.

That should be 1478. It's also a different name: <hoef> is 'farm', and <hooft> is an old spelling of <hoofd> 'head'.

> The submitted spelling is not dated.

At this point the submitted spelling isn't even documented!

> Client cares more for the spelling of [Hooft] but will take [Hoeft] if documentation can't be found.

F. Debrabandere, Kortrijkse Naamkunde 1200-1300, Onomastica Neerlandica, 1980, Nr. 394, gives the citation <Clemme Hoeft> 1300 under the headword <Hooft>; he describes <Hoeft> here as a byname for someone with a notable head (modern Dutch <hoofd>). Thus, <hoeft> is certainly a possible alternative to <hooft> as a spelling of modern <hoofd> 'head' at that date, at least. However, there serious problems with <van der Hoeft>.

The first is grammatical: the noun <hoofd> is neuter, and the preposition <van> takes the dative case, so the correct form of the article is <d(i)en>, and the noun adds an inclectional suffix <-e>. (This can be seen at <www.ned.univie.ac.at/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/en/mnlcasus-schema.htm>, where the relevant example is <dien goeden hove>.

The second is that so far as I can tell, <van> is simply the wrong preposition. J. van den Schaar, 'De Hollandse naamgeving in de middeleeuwen en haar maatschappelijke achtergronden', in Vlaamse Vrouwennamen en Hollandse Naamgeving in de Middeleeuwen, Onomastica Neerlandica, 1959, p.36f, has several bynames based on body parts:

Jan metten Goedenhoifde, 1344 'with the good head' Ghisebrecht Goudencop 1317 'golden-head' Copkijn met den Crommenarm 1344 'with the crooked arm' Adam Hardevust 1317 'hard fist' Symon Smalbien 1343 'small leg' Vriese met den goeden bienen 1345 'with the good legs'

These citations show just two distinct types: asyndetic, with the name of the body part (here with a modifier) immediately following the forename, and prepositional with the phrase <met den>, <metten> 'with the'. The prepositional types <van den> and <van der> are not in evidence.

These are a little earlier than the submitter's forename documentation, so I took a look at the <van den X> and <van der X> bynames at <http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch15surnames.html>.

All of the ones that I can identify are locative, and none of the rest looks at all likely to refer to a body part. (I'd probably recognize terms for any of the body parts that tend to be used in bynames.) So far as I can recall, I've never seen a byname of this type that was identifiably anything but locative, so I cannot support the byname <van der Hoeft> or even, with the grammar corrected, <van den Hoefte>.

On the available evidence a 14th century byname <met den Hoefte> 'with the head' or <metten Hoefte> can easily be supported. The asyndetic byname <Hoeft> is also clearly just fine. This leaves only the question of whether <Heinrick>, documented from the later 15th century, is compatible with these 14th century bynames. I have no citation that early, but van der Schaar (op. cit., 39) has <Heinric> 1284, so the only real question is whether the final <-k> is likely that early. I'd certainly have no qualms about <Heinric met den Hoefte> or <Heinric metten

Hoefte>; <Heinrick met den Hoefte> (or with <metten>) is a bit more speculative.

I tried contacting the client through the Dragon Herald as they are in the same group. After making attempts for the client to either accept the proposed change or to provide more documentation I have not heard from him. This name is therefore being returned.

{6) Isleifr (M) -- New Name}
(White Waters)

[Isleifr] -- Client did a web search for the name [Isleifr]. He included the page that resulted in his Yahoo Search which includes the following urls: Aryanhwy’s "Viking Names found in the Landnamabok" (http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/landnamabok.html) and "Dorothy Dunnett - Questions - King Hereafter" (http://www.dorothydunnett.co.uk/dunnettqa5.htm)

“Viking Names found in the Landnamabok" (www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/landnamabok.html) sites [Isleifr] 3 times.

Geirr Bassi Haraldsson, "The Old Norse Name" p. 12

Commentary

Ana - return for violation of: Part III - Compatible Naming Style and Grammar
All elements of a name must be correctly arranged to follow the grammar and linguistic traditions of period names, as is required by General Principle 1b of these rules. This section defines the requirements for arranging acceptable words into a compatible name.
2. Name Style. - Every name as a whole should be compatible with the culture of a single time and place.
a. Personal Names - A personal name must contain a given name and at least one byname ; each of these components will be called a name phrase .

Catriona - This submission violates part III, section 2, subsection A of the rules regarding name submissions as there is no second name phrase. (http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#1)

"2. Name Style. - Every name as a whole should be compatible with the culture of a single time and place.

a. Personal Names - A personal name must contain a given name and at least one byname ;"

Therefore, I suggest returning this item.

Ohio - Seems like a perfectly documentable name, but with only a single element must be returned. Did anyone actually consult on this?

Talan - The name is <Ísleifr> (<I/sleifr>), and it's found in Iceland from the earliest period; not only is it the name of one of the original settlers, but it's also the name of a bishop who died in 1080 (Lind s.n. <Ísleifr>). Lind says that it went out of use in Norway at an early date.

At any rate, it's fine as far as it goes, but the rules require that a registered name have at least two elements, so he needs some kind of byname; the simplest (and most common) is a patronymic.

Name returned for violation of rule III.2.a

{7) Isobal Mhic Leoid (F) -- Name Resubmission and Device Quarterly checky azure and argent and Or, a frog tergient s/b tergiant vert}
(Cattenden)

[Isobal] - http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/arval/scotgaelfem correction from the Midrealm College of Heralds 12/15/02

(Esct Note: The documentation is as it appears on the paperwork. I went to the url and got: This page has been removed by the Academy of Saint Gabriel (Last updated 2 Jan 2002). This article has been superceded by Sharon L. Krossa's Scottish Gaelic Given Names for Women.)

[Mhic] Effrick’s “Quick and Easy Gaelic Names” http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames
email from Arval with correct period spelling The email was not included in the paperework.

[Leoid] - Effrick’s “Simple Guide to Constructing 12^th Century Scottish Gaelic Names” http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/simple_scotgaelic has [Léod] as a reconstructed standard form. (Esct Note: The current URL for this web page is http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/simplescotgaelicnames12.shtml )

Client cares for Gaelic/Celtic 14th century. Client also cites conversation with Middle Kingdom Herald concerning the change from previous submission but failed to include the paperwork. Also, included in the paperwork is letter from Opinicus Herald dated Aug. 1, 2003 stating the reason her original name "Iosobal inghean Uilliam mhic Leoid" was returned by Laurel in April 2003 for violation of R.f.S. VI.3

Also, she includes the letter from Rouge Scarpe dated Dec. 15, 2002 stating her original device "Quarterly checky azure and argent and Or, a frog salient vert was returned in kingdom for conflict and redrawing. She enclosed a check of $16 as the year grace period for resubmission is over. Her black and white copy of the device is very poor quality.

Client will not accept major changes

Original name Iosobal inghean Uilliam mhic Leoid returned by Laurel on the April 2003 letter for the following reason:

“As submitted this name claims relationship with Uilleam MacLeòid (registered in January 1997), and so violates Rules for Submissions VI.3 Names Claiming Specific Relationships, which states, in part, ‘Names that unmistakably imply identity with or close relationship to a protected person […] will generally not be registered.’ Since you did not permit the College to make changes, they were unable to modify this name to remove the claim of close relationship, in order to register this name.”

Name Commentary

Ohio - we are of the opinion that the basic name involved, being Isabel MacLeod in some form or other, is a perfectly reasonable name that could be nailed down with a little clarification on the submittor's expectations and desires. Further, we suspect that the assorted temporal peculiarities that advocate it's failure are due to lack of knowledge for both the submittor and the consulting herald, as an apparent, albeit unsuccessful, good faith attempt was made toward documentation. This may also explain the change in spelling from Iosobal which apparently passed muster at Laurel to Isobal which is quite different. Just as Mugmort Pursuivant has been helpful in clarifying issues for the Gunnolf Muir submissions, I am contacting Cattenden Pursuivant about this one. While rejection is obviously justifiable, we would recommend a pend to allow for clarification and subsequent resolution rather than outright rejection. I can communicate this to Rouge Scarpe as soon as I hear from Catteden and client.

Note from RS: there was no correspondence regarding this name.

John – Isobal: many variant spellings, all acceptable; see Conway (p. 64); Todd (p. 49); Woulfe (p. 47); Coghlan (p. 40)

MhicLeoid: a Gaelic version of ‘MacLeod’; see Grimble (pp. 185-189); Dorward (pp. 226-227); Conway (p. 181); Whyte (pp. 194-195)

Talan - > (Esct Note: … This article has been > superceded by Sharon L. Krossa's Scottish Gaelic Given Names for Women.)

Which is at http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/gaelicgiven/, or rather, for the women's names, at <http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/gaelicgiven/women.shtml>.

The relevant article is at http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/gaelicgiven/women/iosbail.shtml; it does not support <Isobal>, the closest it comes being <Issobell> from the Book of the Dean of Lismore. This is a collection of Gaelic poetry made in the early 16th century; it is written in Gaelic, but using Scots rather than Gaelic spelling conventions. It also has two other spellings of the name, in <Yssbell ne v'kellan> and <Isbell ne vek Callein>, both meaning 'Isabel daughter of MacCalin'.

> [Mhic] Effrick’s “Quick and Easy Gaelic Names”

> http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames

> email from Arval with correct period spelling The email was not included in the paperework.

Effrick's article certainly does not support this construction. The original construction, <X inghean Y mhic Z> 'X daughter of <Y mac Z>', was fine, and <X inghean Z> 'X daughter of Z' and <X inghean mhic Z> 'X daughter of Mac Z> are also found, but <X Mhic Z> is rather bizarre.

> [Leoid] - Effrick’s “Simple Guide to Constructing 12th Century Scottish Gaelic Names” (etc…)

And for the record, the documentary form in the Book of Deer is <Léot> (<Le/ot>); both this and <Léod> (<Le/od>) are nominative case forms. The standard modern genitive is <Leòid>, but the accent is modern.

> Client cares for Gaelic/Celtic 14th century.

'Celtic' is not a useful term in this context; the only reasonable interpretation here is that she wants a 14th century Gaelic name. Unfortunately, we appear to have no evidence that Gaels were using any form of <Isabel> that early. In the other direction, Black s.nn. <Macleod>, <Leod> has no instances of <Leod> as a forename after the 12th century, so that a 14th century Scottish Gael is unlikely to be the daughter of a man named <Leod>, and an <Isabel> of any kind is even less so; this makes <Issobell inghean Leoid> or <Issobell nighean Leoid> (using the late-period Scottish Gaelic form of <inghean> 'daughter') or the like extremely unlikely.

On the other hand, we do have a <Torquil M'Leoid de Leohus> 1338 (Black s.n. <Macleod>), so <X inghean mhic Leoid> would make sense in the 14th century provided that X was a 14th century Scottish Gaelic name, with <Mac Leoid> as a clan affiliation rather than a true patronymic.

Alternatively, Effrick conjectures that the Scottish Gaelic form corresponding to <Issobell> may have been <Iosbail> or <Iosobal>; if we tentatively accept the latter, we get <Iosobal nighean mhic Leoid> 'Isabel daughter of MacLeoid', or at least something quite similar, as a late-period Scottish Gaelic name. This is probably as close as we can legitimately come to the name that she submitted, and it's not a 14th century name.

Device Commentary

Canute - Quarterly Or and checky argent and azure, a frog vert

Ragnarr the Frog - May of 1998 (via the East):

(Fieldless) A frog tergiant vert.

Single CD for fieldless. Return for conflict

Ana - It's purple. The copies all had a purple tint to it. The black print was purple. This should be returned for printing errors and resubmitted without the purple.

M&A - We agree that this is a conflict with Ragnarr the Frog. There is 1 CD for the field, but that is all.

Ohio - Reblazon to " Quarterly Or and checky argent and azure a frog tergiant vert. There is the already cited armourial conflict with Ragnarr the Frog.

Ary - I agree that this needs to be returned for color issue, as the azure is not azure, but purpure. But the blazon has the field tincture reversed: It is in fact "Quarterly Or and checky azure and argent, a frog tergiant vert". As noted by others, this conflicts with Ragnarr the Frog (reg. 05/1998 via the East), "(Fieldless) A frog tergiant vert." There is one CD for the cumulative changes to the field.

Talan - The emblazon shows 'Quarterly or and checky argent and azure, a frog tergiant vert'.

Name returned since no major changes are allowed and we would need to add ‘nighean’.

Device returned with name and for corrections.

8) Issobell de Montchrestien (F) -- New Name
(Sternfeld)

[Issobell] - Talan’s “Feminine Given Names in A Dictionary of English Surnames” http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/reaney.cgi?Isabel lists Issobell c. 1579

[de Montchrestien] - Cateline’s “Sixteenth Century Norman Names” http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/cateline/norman16.html lists [de Montchrestien] as a 16th century Norman surname

Client cares for sound and middle 16th century Tudor with French influence.

Client will not accept major changes

Commentary

Ohio - This may exceed the Isobell limit for any one ILoI. The Tudor/French reference seems irrelevant to a name form. Probably salvageable with some tweaks.

Talan - > http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/reaney.cgi?Isabel lists Issobell c. 1579

The correct date is 1597; note that Reaney has taken the citation from Black s.n. <Robbie>, and that this is actually a Scottish form.

> [de Montchrestien] - Cateline’s “Sixteenth Century Norman Names”

> http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/cateline/norman16.html lists [de Montchrestien] as a 16th century Norman Ssurname

> Client cares for sound and middle 16th century Tudor with French influence.

I frankly don't know what this is supposed to mean. With just a tiny handful of exceptions, English surnames of the 16th century, including those of French locative origin, did not retain <de>. On the other hand, there were resident aliens of French origin who had genuinely French surnames, some of which were recorded in much the forms that one might expect to find in France at that date; for instance, Hitching & Hitching (xxxii) note <De la Croix> 1601 in London. A mid-16th century *Frenc* <Isabeau de Montchrestien> would be quite unremarkable, and I suppose that in England she might appear as <Isabel de Montchrestien>, but she'd be French, not English. I suppose that it's even conceivable that if she were in Scotland rather than in England, she might appear as <Issobell de Montchrestien>, but her 'Tudor' implies an English rather than a Scottish background.

I'm really not sure what to do with this thing. By no stretch of the imagination is it a plausible English name as it stands, 'middle 16th century Tudor with French influence' isn't very meaningful, and to the extent that it does make any sense, the submitted name doesn't fit the requirement. Were I Pelican, I'd register it as <Isabel de Montchrestien> as the closest somewhat reasonable compromise.

I’m going to pass this up to Laurel, as is, for determination.

9) Jemma Blakeney (F) -- New Name and Device -- Argent, a bordure vert mullety argent
(Fenix)

Client wishes English name (no time line was listed).

[Jemma] -- "Feminine Given Names in A Dictionary of English Surnames," by Talan (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/reaney/) [Jemma] c. 1283

[Blakeney] -- Used as an unmarked locative. Eckwall. s.n. Blakeney p. 45. [Blachen] c. 1185, [Blakenia] c. 1196, [Blakenye] c. 1242, [Blakene] c. 1248.

Name Commentary

Talan - This is fine as a 13th century name and adequately documented by the submitter.

Device Commentary

Canute – Clear

M&A – In addition to other close, but far-enough-away armory previous mentioned, this device is clear of Conchobar mac Gabhann, device registered in October of 2002 (via the Middle): Argent, on a chief vert three martlets argent. There is 1 CD for the change from a chief to a bordure, and 1 CD for change of type of tertiary charges, via Rfs 4.j.ii

Ohio - Very good device. We fear this may impinge on the usual requirement to find at least one thing wrong with each submission or at least something to argue about, arguably.

Ary - What lovely arms! They are clear of Fredrick of Woodlyn (reg. 09/1988 via Caid), "Argent, a bordure urdy vert," with one CD for the type of bordure, and one for adding the mullets. They are clear of Constance Beauchamp (reg. 02/1989 via the East), "Barry wavy and per pale azure and argent, a bordure vert," through X.4.a.ii.b. They are clear of Miguel of St. Katherine (reg. 12/2003 via the West), "Checky argent and sable, a bordure vert," for the same reason.

I found nothing else close.

Name and Device passed to Laurel

10) Katriina Turkulainen -- Device Resubmission - Per bend sinister azure and gules, a sun of twelve straight rays and a reindeer’s head argent erased.
(Lakevilla, IL)

Blazon changed to: Per bend sinister azure and gules, a ~~mullet~~ sun of twelve straight rays and a reindeer’s head erased argent.
(name sent to Laurel May '04)

Per bend sinister azure and gules, sun of twelve straight rays and reindeer head argent erased was returned by Rouge Scarpe May '04 because the client used a Calontir submission form and not Middle.

Commentary

Canute – Clear

M&A - Clear of Magnus Nauta, badge registered in September of 1992 (via Atlantia): Paly vert and erminois, a stag's head erased and in chief an estoile of eight rays argent. There is 1 CD for the field, and 1 CD for estoile vs. sun. We are inclined to keep the blazon of "sun of twelve straight rays" for the sun in the submitted device, as opposed to calling it a mullet, due to the presence of the central disk. From the Precedents of Francois la Flamme: "Period suns are generally multipointed mullets (sometimes with some wavy rays) which fit into a circle (Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/01, R-Atenveldt)." This seems to us to imply that Laurel (at least the previous one) does not require a sun to have wavy rays.

Ohio - Notwithstanding the forms issue (good catch, Elena), we would reblazon " Per bend sinister azure and gules a sun of twelve straight rays and a reindeer head erased argent". The drawing also leaves much to be desired. As to the mullet of twelve issue, according to the Pic-Dic a sun can also be represented with only straight points instead of alternating straight and wavy. No one present saw a mullet of twelve points when looking at this emblazon. A redraw advisory might should be included with the rejection letter.

Ary - A sun by definition has alternating straight and wavy rays, so this is just "a mullet of twelve points". The posture of the head should come before the tincture, e.g. "a reindeer's head erased argent". I found no conflicts.

Talan - The last two words of the blazon should be interchanged: '... and a reindeer's head erased argent'.

Passed to Laurel

11) Lefsune Æ lfstan (M) - New Name and Device - Azure, two wolves combatant argent maintaining a cross potent Or and a bordure embattled argent
(Hunter's Home)

Client cares for a name from 11th century British Isles

[Lefsune] -- Reaney & Wilson p. 277, under Leveson, dated (as a single, given name) to 1066 DB.

[Æ lfstan] -- found in Searle dated to 1062 (among many others), p. 21. The use of unmarked patronymics is shown in Tengvik p. 209

Name Commentary

Talan - > Client cares for a name from 11th century British Isles

This is not the most helpful of preferences, since the Conquest in the middle of the 11th century had a considerable effect not just on the names used in England, but also on spelling and name structure. The replacement of OE names by Continental names, though it started very early, isn't relevant to this submission, but the submission does raise issues of spelling and structure. I'll deal with structure below, but a very little background on spelling may be helpful.

Although good Old English continued to be written in at least a few scriptoria right into the early 12th century, most of our post-Conquest sources use quite different spelling conventions, resembling Middle English more than Old English. (And Domesday Book spellings are sometimes quite different from both.) Thus, in the early 11th century we still find <Leofsunu>, the standard OE form (see below), while in Domesday Book we find (among others) <Lefsune>, a spelling essentially identical to <Lefsun'> 1198 (Seltén, II:115).

> [Lefsune] -- Reaney & Wilson p. 277, under Leveson, dated (as a single, given name) to 1066 DB.

The Old English name is <Léofsunu> (<Le/ofsunu>), where the accent is an editorial indication of a long vowel, not something that would have been written at the time; <Lefsune>, being a Domesday Book spelling, cannot automatically be trusted to represent actual 11th century English spelling practice. For evidence of actual pre-Conquest OE spellings see below.

> [Ælfstan] -- found in Searle dated to 1062 (among many others), p. 21.

Not really, no, because Searle's citations cannot be trusted to show the actual documentary form. The only entries in Searle that can safely be assumed to be documentary are boldface spellings *after* the headword; an example is found seventh entry in the first column of p.23, where the headword <Ælfstan> is followed by <Alestan> in boldface; in this case it's safe to assume that <Alestan> is documentary, though it's possible that the document contains other forms as well.

If, as in this case, there's only the headword, which is always a normalized form, the only way to tell what is actually in the document is to find the original document. To illustrate the point, Searle's 1062 example cites a charter called KCD 813; typing "K 813" into the search box at <http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=show&page=Charters> yields the information that in modern notation this charter is S(awyer) 1036, which is printed at <http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=1036>.Finally, after chasing most of the way through the list of witnesses, we find the actual citation, the Latinized form <Ælfstanus princeps> (<{AE}lfstanus princeps>).

The abbot ca.1040 who is mentioned in charters KCD 1323, 1325, 1326, 790, and 900, on the other hand, appears in Old English in the first two as <Ælfstan abbot>, in Latin in the ablative case as <Ælfstano> in the third, in OE as <Ælfstan abbod> in the fourth, and again in Latin in the ablative case as <Ælfstano> in the last, yet only the headword <Ælfstan> is found in Searle's entry. A somewhat more egregious example is the first entry for the feminine name <Ælfswith> (<{AE}lfswith>): the charter, KCD 1145 (S 487) actually has <Ælwswiþe> (<{AE}lwswi{th}e>), apparently declined as a Latin genitive. Much more extreme variations can be found.

Also, many of his dates are now known to be wrong, sometimes by as much as half a century; for instance, the Ælfstan dated ca.1050 in the first column on p.23 is from a list of serfs now thought to date from ca.1000. Finally, many of the names in his sources aren't actually Old English at all, but Continental Germanic or Scandinavian names that he's classified under their Old English cognates (some of which aren't actually attested in OE at all). Thus, a great deal of care is needed in using Searle.

It turns out, however, that the name <Ælfstan> is one of the less troublesome ones. I went through all of Searle's 11th century citations for which charter references were given and checked them against the modern on-line versions, with the following results, which I've tabulated by Sawyer number of the charters in question. In each case I've given the name as it actually appears (with any descriptive identifier), followed in parentheses by an indication of the linguistic context (Latin (L) or Old English (E)) and the date. An asterisk indicates that the charter is probably spurious. (For those not familiar with the notation, a date of 1027x1035 means 'some date between 1027 and 1035 tht we can't pin down any tighter'.)

S 899: Alestan Uuentane ecclesie episcopus (L; 1001)
S 909: Ælfstan Fontanensis aecclesiae episcopus (L; 1004)
S 954: Ælfstan abbas (L; 1019)*
S 955: Alfstan abbas (L; 1019)
S 987: Ælfstan abbot (E; 1035)
S 988: Ælfstan abbot (E; 1035)
S 990: Ælfstano (L abl.; 1027x1035)*
S 994: Ælfstan abbas (L; 1042)
S 999: Ælfstan (L; 1043)
S 1048: Ælfstano (L; 1042x1046)*
S 1465: Ælfstan Abbod (E; 1032 or 1035)
S 1471: Ælfstan steallære (E; ca.1045)
S 1472: Ælfstan abbod (E; 1044x1045)

As can clearly be seen, there's no doubt that the submitted spelling is consistent with 11th century Old English usage. The real question is whether Domesday Book's <Lefsune> is consistent with 11th c. OE usage.

Searle (333) has four entries for <Leofsunu> for which he gives 11th century dates, citing charters K 1302, K 754, K 1315, and K 732. Of these, K 754 (S 1390) is not available on-line. The others, in the order just listed:

S 1422: Leofsuna abbud æt Cernel (E; 1007x1014)
S 1220: Leofsunu (E; 1013x1020)
S 1461: Leofsunu his broðer (E; 1016x1020); this is in a list of witnesses and immediately follows the name <Godwine Eadgeofe sunu> 'Godwine son of Eadgeofu', a nice example of a metronymic.

These all use fairly traditional OE orthography rather than that of Domesday Book.

Alternatively, we can ask how OE <Ælfstan> is spelled in Domesday Book. Von Feilitzen (180f) shows the following forms: <Alstan>, <Alfstanus>, <Alestan>, <Alestanus> (and Latin inflected forms thereof), <Alestannus>. All of these spellings except the second can also represent at least two other OE names, <Æðelstan> and <Ealhstan>, but the men in question here are known from OE sources to have been named <Ælfstan>.

> The use of unmarked patronymics is shown in Tengvik p. 209

Tengvik can be almost as dangerous as Searle for the uninitiated. The first two pages of citations in that section are all from Domesday Book or later, and a majority have Continental names. I went through the entire section and pulled out the pre-Conquest citations, arranging them by the nature of the source rather than alphabetically.

Two of the names are from chronicles compiled well after the date associated with the name:

Alfstanus Clac, ca.975

This is from the Liber Eliensis, a chronicle of the history of the Isle of Ely compiled in the later 12^th century (<http://www.boydell.co.uk/43830159.HTM>); we cannot assume that his <Alfstanus Clac> necessarily represents pre-Conquest OE usage, even in a Latin context.

Willelmus Fossard, 1055

This is evidently a Norman name. It is taken from the Evesham Chronicle, a history of the church at Evesham that was compiled in the early 13th century (<www.wmich.edu/medieval/research/rawl/keynesbib/bibliob.htm>; here again we cannot assume that the name represents pre-Conquest OE usage, even in a Latin context.

Two more are from the charter BCS 1130, which turns out to be S 1448a; the on-line version narrows the range of dates from Tengvik's 972x992 to 983x985 and corrects some of his readings.

Þurlac Ferðeng (<{TH}urlac Fer{dh}eng>)

The on-line version shows the name as <Þurhlac ferðeng>and translates the byname as <Farthing>. It is verydoubtful whether the byname is patronymic. Tengvik thought that it represented ON <Farþegn> (<Far{th}egn>), but <Ferðeng> would be a remarkably corrupt form in the10th century, very much out of keeping with the many other names in this same charter; one would expect <Farþegn>, <Farðegn> (<Far{dh}egn>), <Farþæin> (<Far{th}{ae}in>), <Farðæin> (<Far{eh}{ae}in>), or thelike. OE <féorðing> (<fe/or{dh}ing>) 'a fourth part, a farthing', on the other hand, easily yields <ferðeng>. Fellows Jensen (80) also expresses doubts about the identification of <-ing> forms with the ON name, even at a much later date. On balance a nickname from OE <féorðing> or its ON cognate <fjórðungr> (<fjo/r{dh}ungr>) seems much likelier than a patronymic from ON <Farþegn>.

Grym Kytel

The on-line version shows that the name is actually <Grymkytel>, an OE spelling of the fairly common ON name <Grímketill> (<Gri/mketill>) (Fellows Jensen, 107f; Lind s.n. <Grímkell>), so there is no byname at all.

The next three are from a single York charter for which Tengvik gives the date ca.1050; I have no independent information on it.

Þirne (<{TH}irne>) Beorn

This could be a genuine example of an asyndetic patronymic.

Grimcetel Haw

The byname is obscure. It may be a short form of some personal name, though Tengvik's specific suggestion is a bit strained -- Reaney & Wilson s.n. <Haw> offer a better one -- but it may equally be topographical, from OE <haga> 'a hedge, an enclosure' or its ON cognate <hagi>, or from OE <haga> 'a haw, the fruit of the hawthorn'.

Asmund Ros

Tengvik suggests that <Ros> is a short form of the rare ON name <(H)rossketill>, but this is very speculative. A locative byname is very possible: the place-names <Roos> in the East Riding of Yorkshire and <Roose> in Lancashire, both found as <Ros> in the 12th century, go back to a pre-Conquest Prim. Welsh *<ros> 'marsh, moor; promontory' (Watts s.nn. <Roos>, <Roosebeck>). And since <Asmund> evidently represents ON <Ásmundr> (<A/smundr>), it's also possible that <Ros> is a nickname from ON <hross> 'a horse'. (ON initial <hr-> normally becomes plain <r-> in late OE.)

Two are from the charter KCD 795 (S 1230, dated 1051); the on-line collection doesn't give the text, but it does note that the charter is spurious. We would need to know more to decide whether these names can safely be used as models. (Some charters, though spurious in that they record transactions that never took place, are either contemporaneous with the supposed transaction or good imitations of such charters; names in these may well be authentic.)

Gunterum Liniet (Latin accusative case)

Not only is the charter spurious, but <Liniet> is unidentifiable, as a name or anything else.

Besi Tuk

The last is from an OE will of 1045.

Osgot Sveyn

The byname could be patronymic, from ON <Sveinn>, but it could equally be a nickname from ON <sveinn> 'young fellow, lad; free man in the service of another man; page', also 'swineherd; peasant'.

In short, most of Tengvik's putative examples of pre-Conquest asyndetic ('unmarked') patronymics turn out to be questionable or even wrong; <Þyrne Beorn> ca.1050 is the only one against which no obvious objection can be raised, and its value depends on the authenticity of the charter in question, about which we have no information. For an early 11th century Old English name, or a later 11th or early 12th century Old English name as written in a conservative scriptorium, I'd expect to see something like the classical <Leofsunu Ælfstanes sunu>; <Leofsuna Ælfstanes sune> can also be supported (e.g., <Cytel Clacces sune> 983x985 from S 1448a cited above for <sune>).

On the other hand, the asyndetic patronymic is the normal Middle English type up to about 1300 (Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', in Norman Blake, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II, 1066-1476, CUP, 1992; p.576). <Lefsune Alstan> would be a fine early Middle English name, as would <Lefsune Elstan> (see Seltén, II:20f for the patronymic).

Finally, *if* good evidence for late Old English asyndetic patronymics can be found -- and I certainly don't rule it out absolutely -- one might expect to see <Leofsunu Ælfstan>, <Leofsuna Ælfstan>, or the like.

As it stands, however, the name as submitted mixes two styles that, though actually coexisting briefly after the Conquest, were none the less separated by a major orthographic and cultural shift. This combination is not supported by the available evidence.

Device Commentary

Canute – Clear

M&A - We agree about the possible conflict with Shire of Sigelhundas. Since the charge on the sun in the shire's device is the laurel wreath required for branch arms, there is a good chance that the sun is large enough to be a substantial charge, but this probably needs a visual inspection.

Ohio - We found the same conflict Ary pointed out. We tend to think there is sufficient difference in posture to grant a CD. The of the maintained charges, if relevant, are in different enough positions on the shield to appear different visually as well. In both cases the "maintained" charge commands significant visual weight due to it's position and contrast.

Ary - The submitter should be advised to draw the embattlements as high as they are wide.

This may conflict with Sigelhundas, Shire of (reg. 01/1992 via An Tir), "Azure, two talbots salient respectant argent supporting in chief a sun Or charged with a laurel wreath vert." It is not clear whether the sun is a maintained charge or a sustained one; if it is maintained, then there is no CD for it or the laurel wreath on it, or its position. There is one clear CD for the bordure. There is no CD for a talbot vs. a wolf: "Per the cover letter for the June 2001 LoAR, there is no difference between talbots and wolves. This means any additional difference must be derived from the posture of the beasts. [Ingilborg SigmundardÃ3ttir, 08/01, R-Caid]"

Name will be changed to Leofsunu Ælfstan and passed to Laurel

Device will be passed to Laurel for a final determination. It is highly possible this is a conflict, but without knowing the exact status of the sun in the Trimaris device I will leave that decision to them.

12) Wilhelm von Wolfsburg (M) -- New Household Name and {Badge}: Legion of the Snake – {Sable, a snake argent between four mascles Or}
(Henderson, KY)

Client’s name registered March 2003

(Esct. Note: The client didn't fill out his name form or sent documentation. I talked to Ary and she provided the following documentation. )

"[Legio Ursi] There was some discussion regarding the use of Legion as an order designator versus as a household designator. The following items containing Legion have been registered: <Legion of the Black Fist> is registered to the East (July 1974), but there is no indication in the O & A if it was registered as an order name or a household name. As the East Kingdom OP does not list it as an order, it is almost certainly a household name. <Legion of Athene's Sword> was registered as a household name to Rosemounde of Mercia (August 1979), Legion of Courtesy was registered as an order name to Caid (April 1981), Legion of Gallantry of the Outlands was registered as an order name to the Outlands (November 1993). Given that at least two registrations of Legion are in order names, this order name is registerable. [Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/01, A-Meridies]"

This implies, at the very least, that <Legion> is an acceptable designator for a household.

R&W s.n. <Snake> have the surname [Snak] 1327, from OE snaca 'a snake'.

[Snake] -- And the OED online s.v. snake has <snakes> dated to 1154:

"O.E. Chron. (Laud MS.) an. 1137, Hi dyden heom in quarterne {th}ar nadres & snakes & pades wÃ¦æron inne."

The OED is a no-copy source

Name Commentary

Ohio – From Dmitrii: As regarding the use of "Legion" the documentation attempts to use the 10/2001 registration of Legio Ursi (Meridies, Kingdom of) as support for "Legion" as a designator for a Household name: "There was some discussion regarding the use of Legion as an order designator versus as a household designator ... . Given that at least two registrations of Legion are in order names, this order name is registerable."

The ILoI says "This implies, at the very least, that <Legion> is an acceptable designator for a household." but it doesn't imply any such thing. All it says is that Laurel was considering the question of whether [Legion] should be considered a designator for order names or household names, and ruled that it is an acceptable designator for order names. Laurel was silent on the question of [Legion] as a designator for household names. My concern isn't about "of the Snake" as an element for a household name. I think it's TSCA but also probably justifiable as an Inn Name.

My concerns are:

1. The submitter hasn’t provided documentation for [Legion] used with "of the Snake". If in fact Laurel had said that [Legion] is an alternative designator for [House] this would be okay, but Laurel didn’t say that.
2. On 10/2001 Laurel explicitly ruled that [Legion] is an acceptable designator for Order names, and per Admin Handbook II.B.2. Order names "may only be registered to kingdoms, principalities, baronies or equivalent branches." The client wouldn't be allowed to register "Order of the Snake" so the registerability of "Legion of the Snake" is questionable on that count.

The only way "Legion of the Snake" can be registerable to an individual is if Laurel permits [Legion] to be an alternative designator for both Order names and Household names. Given that the sole registration of [Legion] to an individual was 25 years ago (Legion of Athene's Sword, reg. to Rosemounde of Mercia in 8/1979) there's no compelling reason based on prior SCA usage to accept it as a designator for both Order names and Household names.

I've tried to think of any other word that's allowed to be used as a designator for both Order names and Household names, without success. I was thinking [Company] but in fact in 10/1999 Laurel clarified "Submitted as an order name, Company is a designator that applies only to household names. [Dun Carraig, Barony of, 10/99, A-Atlantia]".

In summary, I think "House of the Snake", while TSCA, is probably registerable. However "Legion" has never been ruled to be an alternative designator for household names, so the client hasn't provided documentation for "Legion of the Snake". Additionally I'm concerned that Laurel may rule that since "Legion" *has* been ruled to be an alternate designator for Order names that may make it unregisterable to individuals.

Talan - >…. Given that at least two registrations of Legion are in order names, this order

> name is registerable. [Meridies, Kingdom of, 10/01, A-Meridies]"

This is a very strange justification: so far as I can see, the acceptability of <Legio> as an order designator was based solely on prior registration and not on any consideration of its merits. I'm not saying that the decision itself is necessarily bad, but considering how often we remind people that prior registration is not documentation, the write-up seems rather unsatisfactory. It's also puzzling that there's no discussion of why (or whether) 'Legion of the Bear' is actually plausible. The whole thing is badly enough flawed that I hesitate to draw any conclusion from it.

> This implies, at the very least, that <Legion> is an acceptable designator for a household.

It does not: the existing household registrations are ancient. I assume that Ary's inference is based on the final sentence of the decision, which could be interpreted as conceding the legitimacy of <Legion> in household names, only its use as an order designator being in question, but that's a pretty tenuous inference when (a) its use as a household designator wasn't really a matter of concern for this submission, and (b) the decision is not particularly well written in the first place.

I think that it's necessary to appeal directly to RfS III.2.b.iv as quoted in the ILoI: 'Household names must follow the patterns of period names of organized groups of people. Possible models include ... military units ... '. Roman legions could fail this test only if it were decided that they were not period; but while they lie outside the core SCA period, they were certainly known during it; La3amon (also known as Layamon and Lawman) writes of them, using the word <legion>, <legiun> in his 'Brut' (ca.1205). In fact he says (in the version in MS Cotton Otho, lines 3002-3):

... þat we cleopieþ ferdene.

þat weren in þan ilke dai3e; legions i-hote.... that we call 'ferdene' (armies). that were in those days called legions.

<etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=LayBruO&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/mideng-parsed&tag=public>

The word was also used at least from the early 14th century as a vague term for a host of armed men generally and also for a vast host or multitude of persons or things, especially angels (OED s.v. <legion>). These uses, however, do not seem to have led to specific names, so the only undoubted period models for a named legion are the Roman legions themselves. Unfortunately, they did not have names anything like <Legion of the Bear> (<Legio Ursi>) or <Legion of the Snake> (<Legio Anguis>). Many had names with geographical significance, e.g., Legio I Italica, Legio III Gallica, Legio IX Hispana; several were named <Augusta>, presumably after Augustus, and Legio II Traiana fortis was named after the emperor Trajan; Legio XII Fulminata had as its name the past participle of <fulminare> 'to lighten, to flash'; Legio XXI Rapax had a name that meant 'rapacious, greedy for plunder'; Legio VI Victrix was 'Victorious'; and Legio I Adiutrix had a name that meant 'helper'. Other interpretable names are in similar vein. (I've taken the names from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_legions>; Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but this article cites the Oxford Classical Dictionary.)

I see no evidence that <Legion of the Snake> is a plausible household name under the rules; it does not appear to fit any suitable model.

Device Commentary

Canute - Sable, a snake nowy contourny argent between four mascles Or

The mascles are unidentifiably small.

Clear

Return for violating RfS VIII.

Ana - There is no default for a snake. In this case, the snake should be knotted. Also the mascles are too small. This should be returned to be redrawn.

Catriona - As drawn, the mascles seem really quite small. I would suggest returning this for a redraw so the mascles are identifiable.

M&A - On our screen, the "mascles Or" look like "lozenges Or charges with another gules". Return for lack of identifiability.

Ohio - The badge is very poorly rendered, the mascles are nigh invisible, and the snake is in no blazonable position that we can find

Ary - His name was registered March 2003 via the Middle. I agree with others who have noted that the mascles are far too small and need to be redrawn much larger. Also, the snake is "nowed contourny". I didn't find any conflicts.

Talan - The mascles are far too small, and the posture of the snake is not blazonable.

Name is being passed to Laurel for a final determination

Device is being returned for redraw

In Service,

Mistress Elena de Vexin

Rouge Scarpe Herald