October 21, 1983 A.S. XVIII 

TO:    The Members of the College of Arms 

FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlassel, Laurel King of Arms 

Greetings: 

Enclosed is this month's LOA&R with 129 acceptances and 29 returns, totalling158 actions. By November 1, 1983, 1 will need all LoCs on the following four Lols (which I will process at my November 6 meeting): Meridies (8/11), West (8/16), Middle (8/26), and Caid (8/30), totalling 84 submissions. 

By December 10th I will need all LoCs on the following eight Lols (which I will process at my December 18 meeting): East (9/7), West (9/11), Caid (9/13), Middle (9/14 Aerdigwidder),Middle (9/14 Bran), East (9/17), Meridies (9/19), and East (9/24), totalling 145 submissions
 
By January 7, 1984, 1 will need all LoCs for the following six LoIs (which I will process at my January 15 meeting): Atenveldt (8/28), Atenveldt (8/29), Middle (10/1), Middle (10/3), Atlantia (10/6), West (10/11), and Caid (10/12), totalling 104 submissions. In addition, I will consider at the January meeting those additional Lols dated in October that are actually postmarked to me and to the College before November 1st. 

There is no mistake in the letters for the December meeting. There really were two Middle LoIs with the same date. Refer to them by the first name listed on each, as shown above. (Don't anyone ever do that again. If you sent out two Lols together, date one of them a day later.) Those two Middle Lols and the East (9/24) Lol actually were postmarked in October, but I am assigning them to the December meeting because it looks like the January meeting will also be large. (If I receive no more Lols from October, I may move one or two of those listed to the January meeting.) 

I enclose a copy of the full roster of the College of Arms. Those with (M) next to their names are commenters on the Mailing List. There have been some changes, as usual, to the mailing list itself. Vesper has withdrawn from the list. Allyn O'Dubhda is now Nereid Herald and is on the list. Master Yrjö Kirjawiisas, a member of my staff, has been added. Lord Gawaine of Miskbridge, Gold Falcon 
Herald for Calontir  has been added. Dragon is now separating submissions between those from Calontir and those from the rest of the Middle. At the September BoD meeting, the petition was approved for Calontir to become a kingdom in February and thus Gold Falcon will become a Principal Herald then. 

I have not received an LoC for three months from Aten, Crystal, or Star, and for two months from Corona, Greenwood, or Monshō. Please get one out soon. All Principal Heralds or their representatives should take care that copies of their Lols go to EVERYBODY on the mailing list. (All Principal Heralds and members of my staff are required to also send copies of LoCs promptly to everybody on the mailing list.) I have not yet received the LoI or forms for the Aten LoIs of 8/28 and 8/29 and thus have moved them to the January meeting, pending their receipt. Commenters should look at my letters with the lists (as above) and at LoCs you receive from others to see if any of them list an LoI you have not received. If so, drop a postcard immediately to the Principal Herald so you can get a copy. Don't just say you "didn't get a copy." The meeting in November will be small (only 84 submissions) and there will be a six‑week gap until the December meeting. I urge everybody to take advantage of this to catch up a month on commenting to prepare for the December and January batches and then you can stay caught up from then on. 

Some miscellaneous matters concerning LoIs: 1)When filling out an LoI, keep in mind that a submission should not be called a "resubmission" unless it has previously seen action in my office. A submission returned at the kingdom level and then resubmitted to kingdom may be a resubmission for you, but it is a new submission to the College of Arms. 2) Please fill out the blazon on the picture sheet to match the blazon on the LoI, legibly and in ink. If the emblazon does not match the blazon, make a note on the picture sheet that the emblazon has been changed. Otherwise, I will assume that the emblazon is right and the blazon wrong, and reblazon it. 3) When a commenter lists a conflict, be sure to give the complete blazon of the conflict. If I agree with the conflict, I will need to give the complete blazon in the LOA&R, which I cannot do if you haven't given it to me. If a conflict is cited but the blazon is not given and I cannot find it myself, then the conflict will be ignored as uncheckable. 

4) All resubmissions on LoIs should include on the LoI the dates of previous actions by my office and a brief description of what the previous problems were and how they have been corrected. The date is necessary because the other commenters must have it in order to look up the comments in the LOA&R in which the submission was previously acted on. Without that date, the commenters have to search through back issues to find the submission. If I continue to see Lols where these dates are missing, I will have to start routinely returning those submissions so the date can be added. 

5) I have learned that in some areas letters are not being sent to submittors informing them of the results of their submissions. Publishing excerpts from my LOA&R in the newsletter is NOT sufficient notification. The comments in the LOA&R are necessarily terse. All Principal Heralds are required to ensure that individual letters are sent to each submittor informing him/her of the results of her/his submission. If the submission is approved, then the final blazon should be given, along with an explanation of any changes in the name or blazon made by me. If the submission is returned, then the reasons for its return should be given, along with suggestions for improvement. (When a letter is sent to a submittor whose submission was returned, I suggest that a set of submission forms be enclosed to assist and encourage the submittor to resubmit.) Expand upon and explain the terse conflicts and notes in my letter. They are intended for the Principal Herald and thus presuppose familiarity with heraldry and our rules. 6) I ask everyone to periodically re‑read the Administrative Guidelines to make sure you are following all of the guidelines. Pay particular heed to the standing requests. (It's been a long time since I've seen rosters from a number of kingdoms.) I shouldn't have to keep restating what is in the Administrative Guidelines. 

More on Lols and procedure: Except for senior members of my staff, all appeals should be sent through the Principal Herald to be placed in an LoI. Appeals from senior members of my staff will be examined by me. If they are simple, I will act on them. If they require discussion or comment by the College, I will ask the appropriate Principal Herald to include them in the next LoI. The same applies to me. If I find an error that can be corrected without need for discussion, I will do so. If it requires discussion, I may ask the Principal Herald to include it in the next LoI. 

I always retain the right to contact a submittor directly about a submission, if I have questions only the submittor can answer. I will, however, try to keep the Principal Herald informed of actions taken on the basis of direct contacts. In the case of the Khan/Khan‑ad‑Din question in Caid, I contacted the household to find out what "memo Hazara” in their names meant, as that was not on the LoIor in the forms. In addition to giving me that information, they also said that they would accept Khan‑ad‑Din instead of Khan, which seemed a fine compromise which I was (correctly) sure would be acceptable to Crescent. As this was Friday night before my Sunday meeting, I thought to save a long‑distance telephone call to Crescent, since I was sure he would accept the change. In this I admit that I erred, and that I should have called him. I hereby apologize to Master Hrorek.

The volume of submissions has currently stopped rising, so restrictive commenting measures are not necessary. If a commenter wishes to voluntarily specialize in one or more references or types of submissions, that is fine. Let us know you are doing so. There is no need for everybody to check everything, so long as each thing is checked by more than one person. 

THE ARMORIAL IS HERE! ! ! Sitting in front of me is the first copy of the new, 212‑page 1983 SCA Armorial. All Principal Heralds should receive copies by the end of the month. (This edition of the Armorial is complete through April 1983. Clarion states that bringing it up through October would delay it too much longer. The final run will be complete.) Clarion is now printing out the Ordinary, which will run over 600 pages and will (he hopes) be ready by my November meeting. (He has to transfer data to a floppy and print from the floppy. Each floppy holds about 30 pages, so the Armorial fills 7 floppies and the Ordinary will fill 20‑21 floppies. The total storage is over 2 megabytes.) 

This edition is undoubtedly full of entry errors. Each Principal Herald should check the entries from his/her kingdom and let us know what the mistakes are so we can correct them. In addition, let us know if you have any suggestions for organization and formatting. I would like to receive this information before Christmas so we can print the final copy by Twelfth Night. That is the copy that will be printed in quantity. When we have a final page count and thus know the copy cost and postage, I will start accepting advance orders for the Armorial & Ordinary. If anyone has access to printing for less than 2.5¢/page and is willing to handle the printing of the Armorial & Ordinary, let me know. We will be printing several hundred copies. I need each Principal Herald to give me an estimate on how many copies would be ordered from each kingdom so we can get a feeling for the print run. All Principal Heralds are authorized to make and distribute as many copies of the first‑draft Armorial & Ordinary as you wish, keeping in mind that they contain errors and that the final version should be out in January. 

Each Principal Herald should check the Armorial to make sure that all branches have submitted their names and that all branches at the Baronial or Provincial level have submitted their arms. Make sure that all warranted heralds have submitted their names and that all titled Pursuivants and Heralds have submitted their devices. Master Eric Foxworthy is currently working on a supplement for the Ordinary consisting of drawings of the unusual charges, which he hopes will be ready by January. Master Yrjö Kirjawiisas is making updated lists of heraldic titles and SCA Orders and awards. Mistress Rebecca of Twywn says that the SCA Order of Precedence should be ready by January. All Principal Heralds should make sure that Mistress Rebecca has been sent the most recent OP and that she has been informed of all awards made since that OP was printed. 

Progress continues on the Authentic Names book. After it is finished,   I will revise and reprint my Herald's Handbook. Lord Fergus de Maundeville is working on a compilation of all current rulings and precedents. The Illiton Pursuivant has suggested that a list of all available SCA heraldic materials be compiled. This is a good idea. I would like to ask all of you to send me a  list of those heraldic flyers, handouts, handbooks, articles, lecture notes, etc., in your area or that you know of, with information on number of pages, cost of purchase or printing, address to write to for copies, persons to contact for copies, etc. I will then try to compile a list of all of these. I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of any of these that you think I might not have a copy of. 

On to current policy discussions in the College and follow‑up topics from the questionnaire: We will consider protecting, on a case‑by‑case basis, names of famous SCA members who did not register their names. I ask each Principal Herald to make a list of those Royalty and other notables from that kingdom who should be considered for such protection. This protection would not count as registration of the name and would not be as thorough as the protection given to registered names. The SCA Order of Precedence will be useful in this regard. It will indicate who has had name and arms registered and who has not. 

I have been preserving as much of a name as I can when I change it to be able to register the device. If the device is not.acceptable and the name needs significant changes, I simply return the name with suggestions. If the device is acceptable and the problem is in the byname, I keep the given name and either correct the by‑name or substitute the name of the local branch as a local byname. If the problem lies in the given name and there is a second given name, I simply delete the unacceptable given name and use the second one. If the only given name is not acceptable, I substitute the mundane given name. If all of the name is unacceptable, I substitute the mundane given name and the name of the local branch. In each case I check to see if the new name conflicts. In the LOA&R we have begun, with this issue, to list how the name was submitted, if it has been substantially changed, so you can recognize the cases where that has occurred. These submittors have the right to make a free name change if the change made here is not satisfactory. (Of course, the free name change must still satisfy our rules.) 

A given name that was created after 1600 will be considered as a made‑up name and must therefore satisfy the same requirements as made‑up names, although the meaning assigned to it when it was created still holds. Surnames that were not used in period still may not be used as given names. 

The College still stands by its desire that all members of the SCA submit their name and device. Alternate persona names and household names constitute only 2% of our volume, so I see no need to restrict them at this time. The three‑badge limitation does not apply for those members who have current rights of resubmission for badges that were returned. Those resubmission rights still hold, even if that would bring the total number of badges over three. 

Augmentations are not inheritable. Similarly, restricted charges may not be inherited unless the heir also has the right to them. Thus, if the parent were a Royal Peer and had added a crown to the arms, when the child inherited the arms as a device, the crown would be removed unless or until the child also became a Royal Peer. If it is not possible to remove the restricted charge (for example, if it is the only charge, or its removal would cause a conflict), then the arms may not be inherited until such time as the heir has the right to use the restricted charge. 

The response so far has been that there is no forseeable need to change the way we deal with badges, but that the membership should be educated and encouraged to submit medieval‑style, fieldless badges. I would like someone to write an article on good badge design for T.I., similar to the great article Mistress Hilary of Serendip wrote last year. (I don't have the time to do it.) Please do what you can to educate people in your area. (Start with your local heralds.) 

I stand corrected by Lord Virgule. Evidently vert was used in personal Saracenic heraldry and my previous information was wrong. 

With regard to the suggestion made by Brachet and Batonvert that the fees be raised to cover payment to the Laurel Secretary, 75% of the responders accepted the concept of paying the Laurel Secretary for clerical services, if such payment were necessary and if the SCA chose to pay other offices in addition to the Corporate Secretary. 62% felt that raising the fees to cover such payment was not advisable at this time. I recognized that, given the obvious conflict‑of‑interest situation, it was not possible for me to raise the fees to cover payment to my wife, but I did (and do) feel that, if such payment were to be made, then taking the money from heraldic user fees was morally preferable to taking it from subscription monies. Had a consensus emerged that agreed with that stand, I would then have placed the suggestion before the Board for them to decide, which would alleviate the conflict‑of‑interest problem. Since the response was negative, I will abandon that concept. The Board Poll includes a section on whether other offices should be reimbursed. We will therefore wait for the results of that poll. If the membership does not feel that any other office should be paid, then that is where it will sit. If the membership does agree that other offices can be paid, then I will place a request before the Board that the Laurel Secretary be one of those offices. The Board will make the final decision. If funding is not provided, we will continue to do the work as best we can, but deadlines may slip on occasion and extra projects may not be possible. (There will be no increase in the backlog beyond the standard three months.) (N.B.: Those of you who suggested placing the position out for bid seem unaware that the Laurel Secretary must be within easy commute distance from the files on irregular notice, and I have already determined that there is no better candidate in this area.) 

Solar's proposal that we raise the fees and then give a discount to members equal to the raise (i.e., charge a higher fee for non‑members) has received an even number of positive and negative comments. This matter is also on the Board Poll, along with the question of whether only members should be able to submit to the College of Arms. We will wait and see what the results of the Board Poll are and then discuss the question if the membership votes in favor of either of these proposals. 

Solar's suggestion that a time limit be placed upon the right to a free resubmission to encourage timely resubmissions was supported by 67% of the responders to date. Whether such a policy is advantageous would appear to vary from kingdom to kingdom. I do not feel that a limitation on resubmission rights should be universally imposed right now. If a Principal Herald feels that placing a time limit on free resubmissions would be beneficial in that kingdom, I will consider granting permission for that Principal Herald to try it in that kingdom as a test case. Such a limit should not be less than one year and at least six months' warning should be given via an announcement in the kingdom newsletter before such a policy takes effect. 

I find that I am sometimes, as in the case of the recent poll, criticized simultaneously for acting without consulting the opinions of a majority of the College and for basing my actions upon the opinions of a majority of the College. I would like to remind everybody that, although I do try to obtain information and opinions from everyone, sometimes resorting to polls, the College of Arms is not a democracy. Ultimately I must and do make all decisions. I try very hard to take into account the advice of the College, and I recognize that on each issue certain members of the College will be more knowledgeable than others., and I try to give more weight to their arguments. Sometimes issues arise in which I have no personal opinion one way or the other, and on these I often do go along with a majority viewpoint. This should not be taken to mean that my office is bound by majority opinion on all matters, but rather that I value and consider all of your opinions. 

But in order for me to consider your opinions, I first have to receive them. Whenever important issues arise and I ask your opinions, I really do want you to send them to me. You are not casting votes, but your opinions are heard and considered. Each member of the College has the right to make proposals to the College for consideration in his/her letters. If I think a proposal has enough merit to warrant discussion, I will repeat it in my letters so everyone can see it, as I have done with the recent suggestions from Brachet, Batonvert, and Solar. 

On a personal note, I would like to announce that at the West's October Crown Tournament Mistress Cynthia was admitted to the Order of the Pelican for her efforts as Founding Co‑Editor of Notus (precursor of Popular Chivalry in Meridies; Notus was a brother wind of Boreas, Zephyr, and Eurus), founding Seneschal of the (then Principality) Kingdom of Meridies, Assistant Editor of the Page, and as Laurel Secretary. She is also currently music director for the quartet consisting of Clarion, Eveline of Shoreham, her and me; we sing period part songs at events and, being particularly fond of works by Morley and in view of our varying size‑‑ from a trio to quintet and back again‑‑we call ourselves Morley or Less. 

But I digress. At the September Board meeting I asked the BoD about the question of the adoption of arms and badges registered to an extinct group by a new group forming in the same area. The Board had previously ruled that the names of extinct groups could not be re‑used. The Board and I agreed that the case with arms and badges was somewhat different. The conclusion was that a new group could adopt a differenced version of the arms and badges registered to an extinct group in the same area, these differenced versions then being registered under the new group's name. I have applied this ruling to the case of Sundragon in Atenveldt, with the difference being the addition of clouds to the rainbows to make them consistent with period usage (see pp. 2 and 3 of LoA&R). 

The Board authorized Mistress Alison von Markheim, Corona Herald, to draft and print in T.I. a Grand Demographic Survey of the SCA membership, and that the question of a 1600 vs. 1650 cut‑off should be included along with other questions of interest such as the geographical scope of the SCA, whether there should be a starting date, plus any other questions the Board or the other Corporate Officers come up with. We will include the question of Elvish names. Mistress Alison will produce the poll and analyze the results. I will advise her on it. Anyone in the College having questions s/he would like to suggest for inclusion should send them to her, with a copy to me. 

The Board accepted my proposal for a change to Corpora to rectify the situation with Royal Peers and Patents of Arms. I also presented a number of policies dealing with titles and ranks that should be considered for inclusion in Policy Statements for the sake of completeness, or at least be brought to the attention of the membership. I have discovered in my researches for the Names Book that the official English terms of address are in period and therefore may be used. (See P. 44 of Titles & Forms of Address 9th ed.), London: Adam & Charles Black, 1955.) This means that Peers can add the words "The Right Honorable" before their title in written address, and that Territorial Barons and Baronesses and holders of Grants of Arms can add the words "The Honorable" before their titles in written address. (To be completely correct, the words "The Most Noble" were used before Duke or Duchess.) Thus, if somebody were writing to me in a highly formal fashion, they would have the option of addressing the letter to "The Right Honorable Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel." These terms are optional and need not be used if not desired. They are not used in speech. 

I arrived at the meeting at 5:00 p.m., having previously told the Board I would be late, and just in time for consideration of my report. This was convenient‑‑ and fortunate‑‑since I had not received a copy of the agenda and thus didn't know what else was coming up besides the petition for kingdom status for Calontir and Corona's proposed poll. Duke Siegfried, the College of Arms' Ombudsman on the Board, was in the process of moving and his mail was being forwarded, so he had not told me of anything coming up. I was therefore quite surprised to discover that the first item of new business was a proposed change to Corpora requiring the College of Arms to loosen its rules on names, sent in by Vesper, who had not sent me a copy. 

Vesper was under the mistaken impression that the Board routinely sends copies of items involving Corporate Offices to those Corporate Officers. This is not the case. While the Steward gets a full Board packet for each meeting, the other Corporate Officers are neither notified nor sent copies of anything submitted to Board unless their Ombudsman on the Board chooses to do so. The agenda itself is very terse and says little about what an item deals with. It arrives (if it arrives) only a week or less before the meeting. Therefore, anyone who sends something to the Board that influences a Corporate Office should send a copy to that Corporate Officer. In this case, Vesper should not only have sent a copy to me but also to the members of the College. (I am not mad at Vesper personally, and I acknowledge his right to make such a petition to the Board, but I am irritated at the violation of normal procedure and the resultant lack of notice, as all three possible means of notice failed.) 

Vesper had realized that the College was simply following the dictates of Corpora in its name rules. Corpora Section IV.C.3.b. states: The College of Arms is entitled and required to establish and‑make known rules to ensure the uniqueness and historical validity of the names and devices used by members and groups, and the historical validity of titles of office. These rules shall include regulations protecting the right of each member to the name and devices which he or she has registered for use within the Society. The requirement that the College ensure that names be historically valid before registering them is the basis of our rules requiring names to be consistent with period practice. Vesper proposed the addition to Corpora of a statement saying that a name was acceptable unless it was contrary to period practices in such a manner as to detract from the enjoyment of the Current Middle Ages by a significant portion of the membership. Essentially, this would have restricted our rules to the offensiveness clause and conflicts. 

Before debating the proposal, the Board polled its own members and unanimously agreed that the current name rules were too strict and that changes to Corpora allowing the College of Arms to ease its rules on names should be considered. As Duke Siegfried and I were already going to be working on wording for an announcement to the newsletters dealing with the question of Royal Peers and Patents of Arms and with the heraldic policies, the Board assigned the two of us to draft a proposed change to Corpora to be sent to the newsletters. (In fact, I delayed this LOA&R until this announcement was ready.) Duke Siegfried's revised draft is enclosed. The BoD will consider this on or before its November 20 meeting and will send the final wording to the newsletters. This change would read into Corpora for the first time the offensiveness clause directly and a statement of what level of authenticity is required. We would still have to define just what it means to say that a name is or is not "clearly inconsistent with period naming practices or current SCA usage." I proposed that the question be included in Corona's survey so we could ask other questions, such as how we should define “consistency with period practices," but the Board felt that, as a Corpora change, it should be sent to the newsletters separately. 

The unanimous agreement by the members of the Board that the rules of the College on names are too strict would seem to mean that we will have to loosen our name rules whether or not Corpora is actually changed. If the change is made, we will have to loosen up further than if the change is not made, and we will also have to deal with the question of defining what "current SCA usage" is and what it means to say a name is or is not "consistent" with it. The Board will rule on the change at its May 1984 meeting. 

As I see it, we can (1) wait until then and, if the change is adopted, redefine our rules in accordance with whatever final wording is chosen; (2) assume that the change will be made as currently worded and discuss and prepare changes to our rules so as to be ready to implement the change when it occurs; or (3) change our rules before May, either in the hopes that by doing so we will convince the Board there is no need to change Corpora or on the theory that, if we are going to have to loosen up, then we might as well do it sooner than later. 

Before I decide on a course of action, I would like to know the opinions of the College on the matter. Which of the above courses of action (or any other) do you prefer? Should the College try to fight the change? Do you agree that the name rules should be loosened? How should we loosen them if they are loosened? How would you define "current SCA name usage"? How would you define whether or not a name is "clearly inconsistent with period naming practices or current SCA usage"? What guidelines should we follow? Do the people in your area think the name rules are too strict? I will give submittors more benefit of the doubt, but I will take no other action until I hear from you (i.e., at least until the December meeting). I ask that you send me your opinions in an expeditious manner. When the final announcement appears in the newsletters and you send your opinions to the Corporate Secretary, please send me a copy so I can compile a consensus of the College for the Board. 

I covered all current proposals under discussion within the College in this letter to make room for this larger discussion. If the SCA membership is unhappy about our name rules then we will have to change them, but I must say that I had hoped we were done with major rules changes. I guess we live in interesting times. 

Pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I remain
 
Your servant,

Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel
Laurel King of Arms

WvS:CFCvS 

Enclosures: College of Arms roster 
                    Preliminary Draft of BoD announcements 
       LOA&R