January 19, 1982 XVI A.S.

TO: The Members of the College of Arms

FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms

Greetings!

Enclosed is the January Letter of Acceptances and Rejections, with 83 acceptances and 24 rejections, a total of 107. There have been a number of changes to the roster, so I enclose a copy of the newest College of Arms mailing list. Blue Tyger's apartment number is F-1, not F-7, and his town is Wilmington. Charles Stewart O'Connor has resigned as Schwarzdrachen and is replaced by Virgil William the Lost. Mistress Moira has resigned from the list due to mundane job time pressures. The Easterncrown Herald has appointed Taran of Windy Hill, Diadem Pursuivant, to be his representative for College correspondence. I am adding Lord Allyn O'Dubdha, Albion Pursuivant, to the list. He is living in London and has access to both the English College of Arms and the Heraldry Today bookstore in London. Besides being willing to comment on Letters of Intent, he is willing to assist members with ordering heraldry books from Heraldry Today. (If it's in print, they have it, as well as many that are out of print.) The number on the list is now 28. I will continue to watch to see who comments. Anyone other than a Principal Herald who goes three months without commenting will be dropped from the list. The cost for subscribing to my letters is still $6 per year.

Enclosed with this letter is a project Mistress Cynthia, Laurel Secretary, has finished. It is a list of the surnames of many royal houses and dynasties in world history, all the ones she can discover, in alphabetical order, with place and time of rulership given. These surnames should not be used in the SCA, in accordance with the rule against claiming to be part of the Royal House of a country. A few cases have been excepted on the grounds that they are enormous clans, only a small part or sept of which was the ruling family. These are the Stuart and O'Neill clans, which may be used with great care to avoid name conflicts with any ruling members of the family. If you have additional names, please send them in and we will list them in the LoA&R cover letter.

Continuing with the collection of translations of titles, here are the Serbian equivalents of our Society titles of nobility:

EnglishSerbian English Serbian English Serbian
KingKraljCount/EarlGrofKnightVitez
QueenKraljicaCountessGroficaMaster of ArmsSokolar Vojnik
PrinceKnezevicViscountGroficeMaster
PrincessKnezevicaViscountessGroficicaMistress
DukeVojvodaBaronBaronLordPratilac
DuchessVojvodicicaBaronessBaronessLadyPratilaca

It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be confusion in the SCA between the concepts of homage and fealty. Every citizen of a kingdom owes homage to the King and Queen, and every citizen of a Principality owes homage to the Prince and Princess. Citizens of other areas do not owe homage, but may pay homage as a matter of respect and courtesy. One pays homage by bowing or curtseying, at the basic level. One can go further and make specific expression of homage in words, gifts, or deeds. Having a spot in the coronation ceremony for the populace to have the chance to publicly pay homage to the Crown could be very effective. The Grand March can be thought of as a chance for the Crown to see the nobility and for the nobility to have chance to pay homage to the Crown. Properly speaking, only the armigers historically were able to pay homage at court, save during the open court sessions when the simple folk could bring in their problems.

Fealty was a very serious and weighty matter not casually entered into. The King only swore fealty to his personal knights and to his vassal lords and civil servants. Fealty is a two-way agreement. The vassal promises obedience (usually under specified conditions) and support, consisting of a mixture of fighters and money or goods. In return, the Sovereign promises protection and justice, and often personal favor at court. Kings should not swear fealty lightly, as they may be called upon by their vassals to honor it.

To give an SCA example, suppose that the King of Caid swears fealty with the Baron of Dreiburgen, as he currently does. Now the Baron sends an insulting letter to the Baron of Atenveldt, causing the Baron of Atenveldt to declare that he will lead the forces of the Barony of Atenveldt and invade Dreiburgen. (This is a common pretext to have a good war, at a site agreed upon.) Now the Baron of Dreiburgen reminds the King of Caid of his oath of fealty and demands that the King assemble his forces and come to the assistance of Dreiburgen. The King cannot honorably refuse, as he did swear fealty. Being a liege lord carries responsibilities.

This has come up because of the growing practice of calling forward the populace to swear fealty during the Coronation. There is no law against a King swearing fealty with every citizen of his Kingdom, but the King should be advised by his Principal Herald just what that means. Each and every one of his subjects would then have a legitimate right to call upon the King's assistance. I therefore advise that fealty be limited to the Peerage and Great Officers, and that all others be allowed to pay public homage to the Crown. There is nothing demeaning in paying homage. In return for the mass homage, the King and Queen could promise justice and protection from outside invasion, without being individually bound to each citizen. Please note that this is advice, and not an order. I just feel that the unsuspecting monarchs should be warned before they commit themselves to mass fealty.

Another matter that I have noticed in the past year is the increasing tendency for people to register proper charges. The use of proper charges was rather rare in our period, and was generally done only to allow some charges to be shown in their natural colorings, which either used colors not otherwise used in heraldry (such as brown) or which had too complex a coloration to blazon. This use of proper I find perfectly acceptable. What bothers me is the many people who use proper to violate the rule of tincture. I have lost track of the number of branches who have placed a vert laurel wreath on a colored field and then called it proper so it won't violate tincture. By any other name, a green charge on blue still lacks contrast. Looking through my references, I find that the period heralds still followed the rule of tincture with proper charges. If you wanted an apple tree proper, you didn't put in on a color field. If you wanted a sword proper, you didn't put in on a metal field.

I would like to propose that we remove the loophole in the rule of tincture and require that proper charges obey the rule of tincture. (We have partially done this by requiring sufficient contrast, but that is a subjective decision that cannot be simply described to the populace.) This means that if a proper charge consists of all colors (dark colorations such as brown, green, red, etc.) then it should be treated as a color charge, and not be placed on a color field. Similarly, if a proper charge consists of all metals (whites, yellows, greys, etc.) then it should be treated as a metal and not be placed on metal fields. A proper charge which uses both colors and metals should be treated as a divided tincture, meaning that it is mostly exempt from the rule of tincture, except that it should not be placed on the same tincture as one of its outer tinctures (placing a blue and white charge on blue causes the blue half to disappear). I further propose that, when a charge in its proper coloration is essentially all one heraldic tincture, it just be blazoned as that tincture. A polar bear proper should be called argent. A laurel wreath proper should be vert. You can still color the small details in the proper coloration, since small details are matters for the artist, not the blazon. Proper should be reserved for those cases where the charge cannot be described in a normal heraldic fashion. What do you think?

Lest you worry about having to rewrite the laws again, let me explain that this change can be arrived at simply by defining "sufficient contrast" as meaning that it satisfies the rule of tincture. The choice between calling a charge proper or a specific tincture is simply a matter of blazonry, and does not affect the emblazon or the chances of it passing. Note that calling an animal proper means it should be drawn in its proper shape, while blazoning it as a specific tincture allows the artist to choose whether to stylize the animal or to draw it in its natural shape. In our period, most animals were drawn stylized, and so we should not be using so many natural-shaped animals if we want to retain the style of our chosen period. Again notice that blazoning an animal by a specific tincture still allows it to be drawn naturally, but does not require it. Let me know of your opinions. For the time being, the present ruling still stands, namely, that proper can violate the rule of tincture but must have sufficient contrast.

I would like to ask all Principal Heralds to make sure that each submission has at least an information sheet submitted with it, and that this information sheet be fully filled out. If you are submitting a name change, then I still want to have an information sheet for that change, listing the previous name, the current name, all information on that name, and the mundane name and address of the person or group representative. It is particularly important that, when a name change is submitted, the previous name be clearly indicated so that the old file can be found. It is most annoying to receive a submission where the mundane name and address are missing. If the person has moved and the old address is no longer good, then there is no way to contact that person. (You need not submit a mundane name and address for a heraldic title.)

My next meeting will be on Sunday, February 21, 1982. At that meeting, I will process the following LoIs: Caid 12/1/81, East 12/11/81, West 12/13/81, and Atlantia 12/16/81. The following meeting is scheduled for Sunday, March 14, 1982. At that meeting, I will process Caid 12/23/81, Aten 12/31/81, and any other LoI I receive in the next week dated on or before January 14, 1982. The April meeting is tentatively scheduled for Sunday, April 18, 1982. The default date is the third Sunday of each month, at which I process each LoI dated on or before two months previous. One problem that has been brought to my attention is the practice of dating a LoI and then waiting several weeks before mailing it out. The date on the LoI is then deceptive since, if I process it according to that date, the rest of the College may not have had enough time to comment on it. I therefore ask all Principal Heralds, or their representatives, to place on my copy of the LoI the date the copies were mailed to the rest of the College. It is more important that they receive the LoI timely than I, as I sit on it for two months anyway. I will then process the LoI's according to the date they were mailed, but refer to them by the date on the LoI.

All Principal Heralds should be aware that their jurisdiction includes all titles and names of orders and awards in their Kingdom, as well as the ceremonies associated with them. It is your responsibility to consult with the Crown on all new titles, orders, and awards, so as to make sure that these names are acceptable and submitted to the College of Arms. You are not responsible for who receives them. Please see to it that the Crown and Kingdom Seneschal incorporate all titles, awards, and orders into Kingdom law. Territorial Barons and Baronesses are essentially Great Officers and should be listed in the law as being eligible for Grants of Arms. The law must state either that the Royal Peerages (Duke, Countess, Viscount, etc.) do not receive Patents of Arms OR that they may, if they satisfy the general requirements for Patents of Arms as specified in the Corpora. Some provision must be included in the law specifying how this is to be checked. The Board of Directors has required me to ratify these laws, so copies of them must be sent to me. (I didn't ask for the job.)

Either the next King and Queen can make the decision when they hold the Ducal or County ceremony (or the next Prince and Princess for a Viscounty ceremony), or the entrants in the Crown/Coronet Lists and their consorts can be tested beforehand to make sure that they satisfy the conditions (as well as being members of the SCA and resident in the area and able to perform the duties) or the Crown Prince and Crown Princess can be taught the skills listed in the Corpora before they are crowned. I prefer the latter, as it can be worked very nicely into the ceremony. When the winner and winner's consort are crowned as Crown Prince and Crown Princess, they can be formally charged to learn the skills listed in the Corpora so as to have satisfied the general requirements for a Patent of Arms before they are crowned. These requirements are not very difficult to satisfy and really are things that a monarch should know and be able to do. This learning process could also include an introduction to the workings of the kingdom, the officers of the kingdom, and such other royal training as is deemed necessary and desirable. The satisfaction of this requirement could then be left up to the honor of the Crown Prince and Princess, with its success being assumed by the coronation. Then, when they leave the throne, they would automatically qualify for a Patent of Arms if they didn't already have one. Remember that you cannot get more than one Patent of Arms, just as you cannot get two Grants of Arms or two Awards of Arms or be admitted twice to an Order. If the Crown Prince and Princess are a Knight and a Mistress of the Laurel, respectively, then they both already have Patents of Arms and the whole question is moot.

Please excuse the poor quality of type in the LoA&R. The typewriter needs to be repaired (this letter is being typed on a different one). It's not Mistress Cynthia's fault.

Until next month, pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I remain

Your servant,

Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel Laurel King of Arms

WvS:cfc

Enclosures