February 1982 Letter of Acceptances and Returns

February 27, 1982 XVI

TO: The Members of the College of Arms

FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms Greetings:

Enclosed is the February Letter of Acceptances & Rejections, containing 121 acceptances and 37 rejections. My next meeting will on Sunday, March 14, 1982, at which time I will consider the following Letters of Intent: West (12/13/81), Atlantia 12/16/81), Caid (12/23/81), Atenveldt (12/31/81), West (1/13/82) and Caid (1/20/82). (The last might get put off if April's meeting looks to be ratker slim, i.e., if there aren't many letters for April.) The April meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 18, 1982.

The massive Letter of Intent from the East and the nearly as massive one from Caid, which were all that were considered this month, point out a problem. If a kingdom gets behind and then catches up all at once, the result is a real strain on everyone from the sudden increase in the workload. I would like to see each kingdom not get behind in the first place, but if it should happen anyway, then please get caught up in stages, so as to not unduly stress the rest of the College. I would rather not see Letters of Intent that include significantly more than 40 submissions. I would rather see large batches broken up into two letters sent out several weeks apart. It's much better for morale that way.

I have received a compact from the College of Arms of the Society for the Preservation of Logres, implementing our agreement with them to use the same rules of heraldry (they will use ours as they stand now) and to protect each other's arms and badges against conflict. They will use the same requirements as we use, namely, two major points of difference between arms or devices and a major point and a minor point between a badge and a device/arms. They will protect against conflict with us, using our Ordinary, and I will protect against conflict with them, using their Ordinary, once they have one. This way, their members could register their arms in our College as well, and vice versa, without fear of conflicting.

In answer to several questions, the design of viscounty coronets is up to individual kingdoms. For the benefit of the scribes, who often must work from blazons and black-and-white photocopies, hereafter we will blazon the tinctures of all charges, including those with default tinctures. This is a reversal from my statement last month. Suns in splendor will be specified as Or and moons in their complement will be specified as argent. If you have Or, a sun in splendor within a bordure azure, this will now mean that the sun is azure. This does not affect the special names of gouttes and roundels. A bezant is still Or and need not be specified as Or. Thus, the blazon for the arms of the Kingdom of Atenveldt will have Or inserted after the sun in splendor.

In response to the feedback I have received, the rules on proper will remain as written. I will be rather strict on requiring sufficient contrast, and I will prefer to use a specific tincture instead of proper if the charge is essentially that one tincture. Proper should only be used when the coloration is not possible to describe with the heraldic tincture, such as a Monarch butterfly proper. A raven is sable, not proper. The beak and claws are minor details left to the artist and are not sufficient cause to invoke the use of proper.

There have been a number of reports of unhappiness in the populace arising from the rapid increase in the severity with which we examine Society names in the past two years. While we have finally hashed out how we want the rules to read and how we will use them, the populace has not been sufficiently educated on them yet and so there is confusion. A number of kingdoms have had problems in the past with Principal Heralds who did not do their job, and the College of Arms itself had a large backlog until I took office. As a result, a number of areas got the impression that there was no point in registering anything, because it would never get acted on. This is no longer the case, but these opinions die hard.

The combination of these two problems just makes matters worse. Old-timers who did not submit their names before, because they didn't think they would ever be processed, now find, or think they find, that under the new rules their name, while it would be acted on, would not be accepted. Thus they continue to not register them.

The Rules for Submissions will shortly be published in T.I. and so the populace will have a chance to see them. We should make a point of trying to explain the rules to the populace as often and as well as we can, so they will be able to follow the rules when they make up submissions, rather than have the rules imposed on them later.

In order to encourage the old-timers to submit their names and to moderate the abrupt shift to the new rules for names., I propose to have a grace period of about six months during which I will be lenient with regard to the requirement that names be in keeping with period naming practices. All other rules on name will still apply in full. Instead of looking to see if a name is clearly in keeping with period naming practices I will, for the next six months, look to see if the name is contrary or clearly out of keeping with period naming practices. I will thus give people the benefit of the doubt. In return, I ask all of you to inform your populace to take advantage of this grace period and submit their names. In September, the College of Arms can discuss the results of this policy and decide if it did any good. We might make a final decision at the Symposium.

This period of leniency will also give us a chance to educate ourselves as to what the period naming practices were. To this end, I ask that you all still check names as carefully as before, so we can all share in your findings. The fact that I accept a dubious name during this period does not mean that I ignore the criticisms levelled against it. Once the populace has been informed and educated about the rules, and the backlog of non-registered Society names is reduced, and we are ourselves educated and agreed upon what period practices were, then we will return to the careful scrutiny of all names. The rules as written are our goal.

I will continue to advise people that their names are misspelled or have the wrong gender or case, or that their translation is incorrect and they have used the wrong word, so please keep telling me these things. I may pass the name more often and leave it to them to resubmit a correction, especially when there are more than one correct possibilities to choose from. I want to improve the image of the College and reduce the adversary image we seem to be developing. We exist to help the members of the Society, and to protect and defend their enjoyment of the SCA, and we should never forget this in the process of encouraging authenticity.

There have been a number of changes to the roster (of course). Cinhil's town is Newark, not Wilmington. The proper address for Allyn O'Dubdha is c/o Alan S. Dowd, FOCCEUR Box 12, FPO New York 09510. Remove Anebairn from the list, as he will now get copies from Star. The new address for Aryana Silknfyre, Peregrine Pursuivant, is c/o KayTen K. Pearce, 6415 Markstrom Drive, Anchorage, AK 99504. The new White Stag Herald is Keridwen of Montrose, c/o Margaret Foster, 1605 Lead Albuquerque, NM 87106. Add also to the list Shara Tunoy, Vox Leonis Herald, c/o Beth Moursund, 1360 Alder, #38, Eugene, OR 97401.

There seems to be some confusion on sending copies of letters. Each member who receives a copy of a Letter of Intent is supposed to write a Letter of Coments on that Letter of Intent. Copies of this LoC are sent to myself and to the Principal Herald who send out the LoI. I fyou comment on several LoIS in the same LoC, then you arrange the comments chronologically by the date of the LoI. Copies of that combined LoC go to myself and to all of the Principal Heralds whose LoIS you comment on in that LoC . You don't have to send copies of the LoC to everybody on the list.

Principal Heralds send copies of their LoIs to everybody on the list, so they can be commented on by everybody. The Principal Herald have official funding through their offices, while the other members do not. The Principal Heralds and my deputies, Green Staff and Virgule, are required to send copies of their LoCs to the entire list for the benefit and education of the other members. This also allows all members of the College to comment upon these LoCs. Thus, if you are a Principal Herald or the representative of a Principal Herald in charge of College of Arms correspondence for that kingdom (or if you are Virgule or Green Staff), then you send copies to everybody on the list. If you are anybody else, then you do not send copies to everybody unless you chose to do so. Everybody will receive copies of my letters.

I would like to repeat that I wish to be sent up-to-date rosters of each kingdom's heralds, and to be sent periodic updated rosters. Do not send me copies of individual warrants, as I have no use for them. (Except for warrants for the Principal Heralds, which I do need.) If I ever get all of the kingdoms' rosters at one time, I can then send out a combined listing to all of you.

In response to a question, it is quite all right with me for the Principal and Principality Heralds who wish to do so to go through their files and resubmit the Society names of those persons whose devices were rejected before we started registering names alone. In many cases then, the names were perfectly acceptable but were not registered because the device was rejected. There is no fee for resubmitting their name for name consideration only.

There seems to be some confusion over the list of dynastic and royal house names that Mistress Cynthia compiled. The list is intended to be a reference. If you find that a person is submitting a Society name that includes one of the entries on the dynasty list, then you are wanted to look at it very carefully. Some names, like Plantagenet, cannot be used under any circumstances. Other names may be used with care that the given name does not duplicate the name of any of the rulers with that surname. That applies in the case where the ruling house is a large clan, such as the O'Neills of Ireland or the Stewarts of Scotland. Some dynasties were known by place names, such as the Princes of Oranges, the House of York, etc. You can still use these place name (witness Sir Christian of Orange and Sir William Gordon of York), but you must be careful. Some of the names are in dynastic or adjectival form. Clearly these should not occur in a Society name, although it might be possible for their surname form to be used. We welcome corrections or additions to this caution list.

I have heard from Meridies that the current plan is to hold the next heraldry symposium near Atlanta, Georgia, on the first weekend in October (Oct. 2/3) at a state park called Hard Labor Creek, some 50 miles away fro Atlanta. We would stay in cabins and gather in a hall for the symposium, with a revel on Saturday night. Further details, such as costs, spillover to Friday or Monday, and shuttles to and from Atlanta, should be announced by Mistress Oreta. If you have any comments on these plans (you'd rather be closer to Atlanta, you'd rather be farther away, you'd rather it was on the following Columbus Day weekend, you'd rather it was two/three/four days, etc., write to her. This is all the information I have.

I would like to put to the College a point which has arisen. If a field is semy of some charge, does that constitute a charge or a treatment of the field? A case that arose was Vert, fretty Or, a horse courant proper. If the fretty is a charge, then this conflicted with Vert, fretty Or. If the fretty is part of the field, then there was no conflict by complete difference of charge, as in one case all you had was a field, and in the other case you had the field plus a major charge. Another way of phrasing the question is this: does the addition of a major charge to a device consisting of a field that is semy of some charge constitute sufficient difference from mundane arms? Does it constitute sufficient difference from SCA arms? (Another example: is Argent, crusily gules different from Argent, crusily gules, a lozenge vert, by 1, l 1/2, or 2 points of difference?) I had always thought that semy is a charge. What do you think?

I am currently at work on a project to compile all of the administrative directives and guidelines which I have issued since I took office so as to compile a little reference pamphlet for new members of the College of Arms. The pamphlet will have complete instructions on all activities of the College of Arms and its members. Rather than having to repeat myself periodically, I can just send copies of this pamphlet to new members. (When it is done I will of course send copies to everybody.) If you have any administrative guidelines you really would like to see included, send them to me in time for the March meeting. If I agree, I will include them.

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

Your servant,

Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel

Laurel King of Arms

WvS:cfc