Box 522
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
13 September, 1989

Unto the members of the College of Arms and any others who may read this missive, greetings from Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, Laurel Queen of Arms!

The August meeting was held on Sunday, August 27. Despite the late date, calculated to allow the maximum time for commentary on the part of those attending Pennsic and other late summer events, substantial commentary still arrived after the meeting, requiring extended review of many decisions! The submissions considered at the meeting included those from the letters from the West (4/28), Middle (5/12), Caid (5/14), Ansteorra (5/17), East (5/20), Middle (5/22), Outlands (5/25), Atlantia (5/30), Calontir (5/31) and Meridies (5/31). Of 456 actions arising from this meeting, 360 were positive, 84 were negative and 12 involved pended items for an overall success rate of 79%.

The September meeting will be held on Sunday, September 17 to consider the letters from the West (5/26), Caid (6/15), Trimaris (6/15), Ansteorra (6/16), East (6/22), Meridies (6/26), Calontir (6/30), and Middle (6/30).

At this time, the October meeting is still scheduled for Sunday, October 15, although mundane travel requirements may alter the time to a date later in the month. In October we will consider the letters from the East (7/15), Ansteorra (7/16), West (7/16), Meridies (7/24) amd Calontir (7/31).

The November meeting is still tentatively scheduled for November 12 and will consider the letters from An Tir (3/8), An Tir (6/15), Atlantia (8/1), East (8/5), Caid (8/6), West (8/6), Atenveldt (8/8), Ansteorra (8/20), Middle (8/29), Atenveldt (8/31), Meridies (8/31) and Calontir (8/31). The scheduled date for the December meeting is December 17, but this is very much subject to change.

ROSTER CHANGES

Juan Carlos Perez has replaced Lance Nystrom as Triskele Principal Herald. His address is Roberto M. Perez, 15878 Willoughby Lane SE, Fort Myers, FL 33905 (telephone: 813-694-3985). Please add him to your mailing lists.

Aten asks that you add Ioseph of Locksley, Greenwood Herald Extraordinary to your mailing lists (W.J.Bethancourt III, Box 35190, Phoenix, AZ 85069).

ADMINISTRATIVE HANDBOOK

Many of you will soon be receiving a draft of the administrative handbook. This draft will be far less complete and certainly less mature than I would have liked due to the lack of input from members of the College on the information which it would be desirable to include in this volume.

At the time of the Symposium, a number of people indicated that they considered the administrative side of the revision process as important as the "rules for submission" side, but to date I have received virtually no commentary on the administrative aspects, apart from a few queries on material to be moved from the current "rules" to the "administrative material". This is extremely disappointing and does not augur well for development of an administrative consensus in the College. (Or is it just that many of you really do not care? ...)

On a related topic, I am somewhat surprised at the relative lack of commentary on the draft rules for submission issued by Badger. With approximately a week to go before commentary closes, I have not received more than half a dozen sets of commentary on the rules. This too is disappointing.

To meet the schedule agreed upon between Badger and myself to satisfy the publication requirements of the Board, we will have to be fairly rigid on enforcing commentary deadlines. As this is your last, best opportunity to have substantive input into the final wording of the rules before it is submitted to the Board at the October meeting, Badger and I both would hope that any of you who have thoughts to contribute would send them to both of us as soon as possible. If your silence is because you approve of the current state of the draft, we could use the moral support. If it is because you feel your comments will not be taken into consideration, you are tragically wrong and are, to quote one of my mother's favourite expressions, cutting off you nose to spite your face.

ON COMMENTARY AND PERSONALITIES

In a chivalrous Society it should not be necessary to remind the gentle members of the College of the need for courtesy to their fellows. Unfortunately, we seem to find it necessary far too often to remind the members of the College of Arms that it is possible to disagree without being discourteous, to contest a position without attacking an individual and to hold to one's principles without impugning the principles of another.

In recent months, several members of the College have resigned from commentary or have made public or private announcements that they will resign from active membership in the College because of the atmosphere of personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, sharp or heated words or "failure to listen". Some of these accusations have been leveled at myself and members of my staff, while certain commentors have found themselves subject to accusations of favouritism or conspiracy by one group of people at the same time they are being attacked by those whom they are ostensibly favouring or with whom they are ostensibly conspiring.

Enough is enough! The work of the College can only continue if its members are willing to focus on the common bonds which bind us: love of our Society, love of heraldry or, at the very least, love of service to some order or ideal outside ourselves. I cannot think of a single member of the College who in one way or another was not inspired to their current heraldic careers by one of these common bonds.

Yes, some of us may not personally adore all the others. Yes, some of us may occasionally be overenthusiastic or abrasive. Yes, some of us may occasionally lack logic or enthusiasm or the kind of scholarship we would all like to see in the College. This does not make any of us the less members of our heraldic community.

Forget the A team and the B team of heralds. Forget the kingdom nationalism that has blighted attempts at calm discussion of a number of issues of awards and honours. Forget the disappointment you may feel when submissions in which you may have invested a great deal of time fail through the research of another. Remember your common goals and common ideals before you overcharge the cannon of your commentary.

ON SAMSON

No, I don't enjoy jawboning all the time. In fact, if there is one thing about the College of Arms that I am sick of, it is the need to do so. All of you are gentles; many of you are peers. If you can try to act the part in public and private correspondence, the business of the College will flow more smoothly and I can devote more space to research and less to fruitless adjurations. [EOR]

To move to a happier topic:

ON THE USE OF THE TITLE BAHADUR IN THE SOCIETY

In his letter of intent of May 14, 1989, Crescent raised the issue of the use "Bahadur" as an appropriate title for knights of Mongol extraction.

Crescent's evidence from histories of Mongol society appears more than adequate to force us to a conclusion that this is an appropriate title for knights, provided only that it is used as it would have been in the parent language as a postpositive title. Moreover, the linguistic and historical evidence indicates that the title passed into use in Hindu circles and so would also be appropriate for someone of Hindu persona. (The title is used fairly commonly for Indians of the last century who were knighted by the British Empire.)

Note that the title in both Mongol and Hindu contexts would always placed after the individual's name, just as would the title "khan".

In the course of discussion, the issue of a wider use of the title for non-fighting peers was raised. As the term appears to have the overtones of "hero" in Hindu sources and a cognate form carries the meaning "brave" in Persian, it would seem that the title was mundanely and in our Society should be associated with military skills and therefore limited to those of knightly rankl.

Your servant,

[Alisoun]