To: All Members of the College of Arms
From: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, OL, OP, QOG, Laurel King
of Arms.
Greetings:
I have purchased a house at 2733 Sacramento St., Berkeley, Cal.
94703, into which I will be moving at the end of the month. I
do not know what my new phone will be. My work phone will remain
(415) 486-5246. This is still the best way to reach me, from 9:30
am to 5:00 pm. With this letter are the acceptances and rejections
for February, covering the submissions received in November. Master
Renfield Wanderscribe has encountered programming difficulties
with the Armorial. He is working on it but cannot give a definite
date of success. I will get copies of the new version out as soon
as I can.
I would like to put to the College of Arms the proposition of
allowing persons to register with the SCA as their society arms
the arms which they actually own in the mundane world. I recall
one case, that of Carlos de Pirelli Minetti, who in the mundane
world is an Italian Count, with the accompanying family arms actually
held by him personally. He was told that he could not register
these arms in the SCA, whether or not he registered his mundane
name as his society name. (Note that it was a period style name).
If he had registered with the SCA first and then registered his
arms with the mundane world there would have been no problem.
It seems to me that regardless of who he registered it with first,
the result is the arms would be registered both in the SCA and
in the outside world. If we can tolerate the situation where someone
first registers with us, and then the outside world, I would think
we could tolerate the situation when he registers first with the
mundane world and then with us.
We have a precedent in the case of Lord Randall of Hightower,
who bears the arms of Lord Darcy by express permission of Lord
Darcy as confirmed by Lord Darcy's agent in this universe, Mr.
Randall Garrett, who is, of course, the author of the Lord Darcy
novels and Lord Randall. Since the College draws no distinction
between fictional arms and mundane arms, this would seem to be
a precedent for allowing mundane arms as the persona's society
device. As the precedent of Lord Randall shows, the society name
need not be identical with the mundane name for this to be possible.
Indeed the surnames need not be at all the same. Since we would
like our SCA heraldry to be as widely recognized as possible I
think we should allow for this possibility of combining real arms
into our system. What do you all think about this? I shall await
your opinions and then make a ruling.
A second matter to consider is the inheritance of SCA devices
and arms. In the Middle Ages and today the hereditary aspect of
heraldry is considered a prime and integral part of what differences
heraldry from personal symbolism used before the rise of heraldry.
Since we style our system on 1485 English heraldry, it does seem
strange to completely eliminate inheriting arms. Let us assume
that a persona joins the SCA and registers a device and a persona's
society name. Then the person's child joins the SCA and register's
a persona who is the child of the parent's persona, and a device
which is identical to that of the parent, with the addition of
a single charge. The parent gives permission for the child to
do so, and so the college of Arms registers it. The parent gives
the College a written statement to the effect that upon the parent's
real death the child shall inherit all right to the parent's device,
giving the child permission to take off the additional charge.
The parent does die and the child petitions the college of Arms
to remove the charge so the child can bear the parents device,
and delete the parents name from that device. It seems to me that
in this case we should grant such a request. Indeed, perhaps we
should grant it without fee, considering the circumstances.
Notice that at no time did I give the gender of either the parent
or the child, or the order of birth of the child in the family,
or the exact charge used. I think these are irrelevant, since
we hold that males and females have equal rights in the SCA, and
that we do not practice cadency as such, since the standard marks
of cadency are really out of period. I also do not think we should
impose a first son or first child rule on such, since the first
child or first son may not belong to the SCA. I think the written
heraldic will from the parent is necessary and sufficient, so
long as the parent and child adopt SCA personas that are also
parent and child.
If the child adopts a persona that is not the child of the parent's
persona, then I am inclined to say that I see no reason why the
child's persona would inherit the arms of the parent's persona.
If someone registers a persona which is the child of the persona
of another society member who has registered a device, but that
someone is not the child of the other member, what do we do? If
the parent declares the parent's persona to be dead, and chooses
a new persona and a new device, can the child now assume the parent's
old device under the child's persona? If a parent registers a
name and device with the College of Arms and dies, can the parent's
child later register as the parent's persona's heir and thereby
inherit the parent's device, even though the parent left no such
instructions? What if the parent did leave such instructions?
If the eldest child is a daughter, and the next oldest is a son,
and the parent leaves no instructions, which should inherit the
device if we allow either to, the eldest child or the eldest son,
assuming both have registered persona's that are the children
of the parent's persona? I do believe that the first conservative
case I gave should be allowed, but then we do have to go through
each following expansion and determine which we will and which
we don't allow, just as the real world heralds had to do. I think
we will be seen in a better light by other heraldic authorities
if we do have some form of hereditary heraldry, and some members
do want it. What do you all think?
The mailing list of the College of Arms has grown to a large number,
many of whom are not commenting on anything received. At the time
of my next mailing next month I will strike off from the mailing
list all of those persons who have not commented on anything in
the previous three months. The large list is a burden to the smaller
Colleges with their lesser funds. Master Harald Breakstone has
asked that he be stricken from the list because although he would
like to be able to comment on the letters, he just doesn't have
the time, and can't see the expense of further mailings to him.
I commend such an action, although I regret the loss of his experience.
I urge everyone else to either comment or resign from the list.
We cannot afford to mail letters out to people who do not contribute
anything in return. The only ones exempt from this are the Principal
Heralds. If they haven't sent out anything in three months I won't
drop them from the mailing list, I'll remove them from office
entirely. Of course, if they have delegated such work to a deputy
they are off the hook, so long as the deputy does the job properly.
Inasmuch as I get name submissions in over a dozen languages,
I would like those of who are fluent in foreign languages to list
them, so I can know who to ask about translation. I want each
principal herald to include the full information about society
names (language, translation, source, etc.) on the letter of intent
to everyone can comment on the names as well as the devices. I
am not a linguist and I need help to do my job properly. In the
hope of hearing from all of you I remain
Your Servant,
Wilhelm von Schlüssel, OL, OP, OLM, QOG
Laurel King of Arms
P.S. In my Rules letter I mistakenly gave the impression that Princes have the right to give out awards higher than Awards of Arms. They do not.