Kingdom of Atenveldt
Atenveldt Submissions (excerpted from the S.C.A. College of Arms' Letters of Acceptance and Return)
Alessandra Canaparia. Name and device. Per bend sinister gules and sable, two bendlets argent each charged with a feather sable and gules.
Submitted as Mercuriade Alessandra Canaparius, Mercuriade is a pseudonym for a 14th century female doctor. The argument was made that such pseudonyms might well have been used as given names during the Humanist revival of the Renaissance. However, no evidence for such a pattern was presented. Barring evidence of this use of medieval pseudonyms of this sort, this name cannot be registered. We would welcome further research on this point. We have dropped that element in order to register the name.
Latinized bynames must match the gender of the name. Thus, the feminized Canaparia must be used. We have made that change in order to register the name.
This does not conflict with the registered Margaret di Ferrara. Under the Rules for Submissions, diminutives conflict with the names from which they are derived. However, Ghita is a diminutive of Margarita, not Margaret. As the names are otherwise different in sound and appearance, these names do not conflict. Under the Standards for Evaluation, we compare names on sound and appearance only, and Ghita and Margaret are quite different in both sound and appearance. Under the Standards for Evaluation, Margarita da Ferrara (her original submission) would be clear of conflict as well.
Submitted as Ian'ka Ivanovna zhena Petrovitsa, the submitter requested authenticity for 11th century Russia. Unfortunately, our resources for that period are slim. We can suggest that Ian'ka Ivanova zhena P'trovitsa is a plausible name for the following century, but neither byname can be dated to the 11th century in anything close to the submitted form. Petriata is an 11th century form of Petr and Ioannikii a pre-1100 form of Ivan or Ioann. However we believe that a name created with these elements would be a greater change than the submitter allows. Therefore, we are making this name authentic for the 12th century, to partially meet her request. This requires two changes: changing the undocumented spelling Petrovitsa to the documented P'trovitsa and changing the early 17th century Ivanovna to the earlier Ivanova. The first is required for registration, while the second is only required for temporal compatibility.
The submitter has permission to claim a relationship with the registered Ivan Petrovich. This permission is clearly necessary under the Rules for Submissions. We decline to rule whether Petrovich is sufficiently different from P'trovits to be registerable without that permission under the Standards for Evaluation.
This device is not in conflict with the device of Rachel of Sandy Stream, Argent, a schnecke issuant from sinister chief and in dexter chief a seeblatt purpure. Under both the Rules for Submission and the Standards for Evaluation, there is a CD/DC for changing the orientation of the schnecke, from issuing from sinister chief to issuing from dexter chief, and a CD/DC for changing the tincture of the schnecke.
There is a step from period practice for the use of a secondary charge with a schnecke.
Łucjan Maciej Niemira. Name and device. Gules, an elephant's head cabossed argent and in chief three Maltese crosses Or.
Submitted as Rebekah Sit al Saylam, the byname is not properly constructed. The submitter said that she intended Sit to be understood as a patronymic marker, but it is not one. Instead, Arabic Sitt is used in compound given names; it means "lady" and is followed by some group of people, place, or trait that the person in question is "lady of." There is no evidence that it was followed by given name or used in a byname. The correct Hebrew form meaning "daughter of Saylam" is bat Saylam. The submitter explicitly allowed the use of bat. We have made that change in order to register the name. The submitter may want to know that commenters could not confirm the patronym from the original source. Therefore, it is possible that it is a transcription error. However, barring definitive proof that it is such an error, it remains registerable.
Commenters observed that Rebekah appears in the published work from which the name is documented as an Anglicized form of the Hebrew name which in modern Hebrew is Rivkah. Without further documentation, this spelling is not registerable in Arabic context. This spelling is found in sixteenth century English and French bibles, including the Geneva Bible. As such, it would be registerable in an English or French context.
The mix of French and Catalan is a step from period practice under the Rules for Submissions; it is an allowable lingual mix in Appendix C of the Standards for Evaluation.
In a Catalan or Spanish context, which is the source of the patronym, the form Rebeca is dated to 1362. As such, a linguistically consistent form is Rebeca fija de Saylam; a Hebraicized Rebeca bat Saylam is plausible as well.
Blazoned when registered in December 1981 as Quarterly vert and argent, in bend sinister two four-leaf shamrocks palewise vert, we are clarifying that the four-leaved shamrocks are slipped.
Appearing on the Letter of Intent as William Flaeil, the submitted form was William Flaiel. As commenters realized this, the name does not need to be pended for further commentary.
While the byname spelling is not documented as a Middle English form, it is documented as an Anglo-Norman spelling (in the Anglo-Norman Dictionary, http://www.anglo-norman.net/, s.n. flael). As Anglo-Norman spellings are found in English byname context, this can be registered. The submitter may want to know that a later byname can be constructed with the meaning "at the sign of the Flail" (for the location of a tavern), which would take the form de la Fleil.
Please advise the submitter to draw all of the leaves closer to vertical; the one nearly horizontal leaf in this depiction seems out of place.
Aida Ysabella Lacarra de Navarra. Device. Per pale gules and sable, an escarbuncle of chain throughout and on a bordure Or three arrows reversed in annulo sable.
Commenters questioned if the use of an escarbuncle of chain Or in combination with the surname de Navarra is presumptuous, citing the arms of Navarre, Gules, an escarbuncle of chain within and conjoined to an orle of chain Or. This would be a possible violation of section XI.2 of the Rules for Submissions, which says that "Armory that asserts a strong claim of identity in the context of the submitters name is considered presumptuous," and of section A6E of the Standards for Evaluation, which states "the use of a piece of historical armory combined with the family name of the holder may be presumptuous."
As discussed in greater detail on this month's Cover Letter, as an escarbuncle of chain Or seems uniquely linked with the royal family of Navarre, we will not allow its use in combination with the surname Navarre.
This device is returned for being obtrusively modern, which is a violation of section VIII.4 of the Rules for Submissions and section A3F3 of the Standards for Evaluation. Commenters overwhelmingly saw this as two light sabers clashing, something which is decidedly outside the period of the Society.
There is also a problem with the depiction of the candlesticks. Both section VII.7.a of the Rules for Submissions and section A2C of the Standards for Evaluation require that elements must be recognizable and identifiable, and depicted in their period and not modern forms. Period candlesticks have a broad base, to prevent them from tipping over, and often also include a cup for catching wax. The slimmer profile of the candlesticks depicted here, along with the unlit candles, had some commenters guessing that the charges were broken swords, daggers, or even boffer weapons, instead of the intended candlesticks and candles. Given the intent of the original submission, the submitter may be happier redesigning this with swords, instead of with candlesticks.
This device is returned for redraw, for violating section VII.7.a of the Rules for Submissions which requires that "Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance." This is repeated in section A2C2 of the Standards for Evaluation which states "Elements must be drawn to be identifiable." Commenters found the eagle's foot here difficult to identify, both due to its being inverted, and by the unusual way in which it is holding the arum lily. The erasing of the foot is also too small to properly identify.
This device is returned for redraw, for using an unblazonable, unidentifiable vine. No evidence was provided, and none was found by commenters, that a "heart-shape" was a valid arrangement in period armory. Commenters also confused this vine with a laurel wreath, which is a restricted charge, due to the similar shape of the leaves. The flowers depicted on this vine were too small to be noticed. It is unlikely that any vine with similarly shaped leaves depicted in a circular arrangement would not be confused with a laurel wreath.
The submitter may wish to know that the depiction of semiminims here is registerable, but a more period depiction would have the vertical line extending from the top of the lozenge, not its side.