only search Aten Submissions
Home Page
Submission Forms
Search A&O
Letters of Presentation (LoP)
Letters of Intent (LoI)
Quick Status
Recent Actions
Heraldic References
Heraldic Art Bits
The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory:
The Rules for Submissions
Kingdom of Atenveldt Home Page

Kingdom of Atenveldt
Heraldic Submissions Page

(administered by the Brickbat Herald)

Atenveldt Submissions (excerpted from the S.C.A. College of Arms' Letters of Acceptance and Return)

The following submissions were registered by the S.C.A. College of Arms, March 2009:

Angelina de Gibraltar. Name change from Angelina al-Jabaliyya and device. Argent, a chevron cotised gules between two crosses moline and a horse salient contourny azure.

Her previous name, Angelina al-Jabaliyya, is retained as an alternate name. Please instruct the submitter to draw larger, more prominent crosses.

Antoinette Isabeau du Dauphiné. Name.

Arria Felix. Name.

Fergus MacInnes. Device. Sable, eight oars in annulo handles to center Or and on a chief argent a cannon barrel reversed sable.

This armory is for the Fergus MacInnes whose name was registered in July 2001 via Atenveldt, and not the Fergus MacInnes registered in June 2001 via Æthelmearc.

Iseult inghean uí Threasaigh. Name and device. Or, a sword purpure between two hummingbirds rising respectant, beaks crossed in saltire surmounting the sword's point vert.

Submitted as Iseult Ó Treasaigh, Gaelic bynames need to match the gender of the given names they modify. The appropriate feminine form of Ó Treasaigh is inghean uí Threasaigh. We have changed the name to Iseult inghean uí Threasaigh in order to register it. This names combines French and Gaelic, which is a step from period practice. The use of hummingbirds is a step from period practice.

Josephine du Lac. Name change from Josefa du Lac.

Josephine is the submitter's legal given name.

Nemonna Vicana. Name and device. Argent, in pale a hand inverted winged gules and a fleur-de-lys, a bordure dovetailed vert.

Commenters are reminded that winged objects are single charges, per the February 2007 precedent: A winged object is a single charge, thus there are only two types of charges in the primary charge group - the decrescents and the winged sword. [Elyas Tigar, 02/2007, A-Artemisia]. A hand is an object, just as a sword is. Therefore, this design is not slot-machine heraldry.

Tatiana Verlioni. Name change from Marguerite Bouchard.

This was pended on the July 2008 LoAR because no evidence was provided that the 3rd C martyred saint Tatiana was known in a culture which is compatible with Italian. Siren provides information that Saint Tatiana was venerated in Byzantium in the 15th C. This is sufficient to register Tatiana in Byzantine Greek contexts. Because there was significant contact between Byzantium and Italiy, Greek and Italian can be combined in the same name, though this combination is a step from period practice.

Her previous name, Marguerite Bouchard, is retained as an alternate name.

Thomas de Revele. Device. Gules, in pall a standing balance between three crosses couped Or.

The following submissions were returned by the College of Arms for further work, March 2009:

Micahel Corey. Device. Per saltire azure and gules, in pale a pheon inverted within and conjoined to an annulet, and an anchor fouled with its line Or.

This was pended on the July 2008 LoAR to discuss whether the pheon and annulet were in the same charge group. Were they alone on the field, they would be considered a primary charge of a pheon and a surrounding secondary annulet. Commenters pointed out that the definition of a primary charge includes that it be the central, dominant motif. We are ruling that, since the pheon and annulet are not in the center of the design, they should be considered to be in the same group. Therefore, this design has three charges (pheon, annulet, and anchor) in a single charge group, and is returned for violating section VIII.1.a of the Rules for Submission, which says that "three or more types of charges should not be used in the same group."

Additional commentary from the College of Arms concerning charges within annulets:

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.

This page is best viewed with a minimum of 800 x 600 resolution, and 16 million colors.