March 18, 1982

TO: The Members of the College of Arms

FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms

Greetings:

Enclosed is the Letter of Acceptances & Rejections for containing 70 acceptances and 12 rejections. My next meeting will be on April 18, 1982, at which time I will process the following LoIs: Caid 1/20/82, An Tir 2/5/82, Ansteorra 2/7/82, Meridies 2/15/82, and West 2/17/82. The following meeting will be on May 23, 1982, at which time I will process the following LoIs: Atenveldt 2/23/82, Middle 3/1/82, Caid 3/3/82, West 3/11/82, East 3/3/82, and any other LoIs dated before March 16, 1982 which I receive. Year end reports are due from all Principal heralds. Who have not yet sent a copy.

Enclosed also is a copy of the revised CoA Mailing List, along with a song written by Clarion at our last meeting. As usual, there have been a number of changes to the Mailing List. The new Pennon Herald is Bridgit Olesdottir of Lock Ri. Domenica Farnese is now Lantern Pursuivant, and will remain on the list if she comments every month. The new Mural Herald for the East is Charles Stewart O'Connor, who will be doing the CoA correspondence from the East, although Brigantia wishes to also remain on the list, so he can comment too. Graidhne ni Ruadh, Oaken Herald, is hereby removed from the list for not commenting. The new and now approved title for Fionnbarr de Taahe is Trillium Herald. I would like to remind everybody that new heraldic titles should be on the LoIs so everybody can see and comment on them. An information form should be included in the LoI packet for each title.

I will soon be sending out copies of the newly consolidated Administrative Guidelines for the College of Arms. I have gathered together all of the administrative guidelines I have issued into one document so that everybody can have an easy and complete reference. This will also ensure that new members know how to properly put together LoIs and LoCs. Speaking of guidelines, let me remind everybody that, when you resubmit a submission which had a name rejection, you should be sure to restate the blazon as well as the new name because, since time has passed, the blazon must be rechecked for conflicts.

Enclosed is a short list of the first arms from the Society for the Restoration of Logres. Please use this list to check for conflicts.

Let me clear up some confusion. We have a rule against anyone using as a surname the surname or house name of a dynasty or royal house, because it would offend some people by seeming to claim royal status. The list of names of dynasties and royal houses Mistress Cynthia prepared was a first draft taken from various sources, not all of whose accuracy we could check. It is intended to be a guide, not an absolute list of forbidden names. We welcome additions and corrections to it sent in a friendly fashion. If somebody wants a name that is on the list, then you are warned to check it out very carefully. If the name is not on the list, this doesn't mean it is automatically OK because we didn't catch them all. If anyone can make a better list, they are welcome to do so.

We limit the charges that may be used to those in existence before 1601 and we emulate the style of 15th-century English heraldry. We check our submissions against ALL known names, devices, arms, badges, trademarks, and flags from today on back and in fiction, fantasy, and mythology. There is no cut-off for conflicts. If somebody will provide us with an ordinary of Saracen arms, we will check against them. If I had an ordinary of modern American arms, I would check against them. We will be checking against the arms that the Society for the Restoration of Logres passes. We check against anything we know about. Just because a conflict occurred after 1600 doesn't mean we can ignore it. I hope I make this clear.

Virgule has convinced me that I erred in restricting the argent label as a charge reserved for the British royal family. I henceforth release argent labels to general use. I would ask that people not use an argent label charged with sma charges, as I feel that would be too close to the royal usage. In response to several comments, I have decided to add gyronny of 6 and 8 to the list of divisions of the field that may be of two colors.

On the question of the Ordinary: Master Renfield has ordered a hard disk for his Apple II computer and hopes to finally be able to generate a new Ordinary and Armorial. In the new version, the badges will have a listing under the name of the badge (i.e., House of the Red Tiger) with a reference to the person or branch the badge is registered to. In addition, there will be a name list listing every word in every name (other than the articles of speech) along with the names that include that word. This will greatly facilitate checking for name conflicts and will for the first time really bring household names into the process. There will also be a list of heralds' titles, a list of Orders and Awards, a list of charges in use in the SCA, and the Rules for Submissions. It should be a very useful reference work, once it finally comes out.

In reference to a question, the Rotation Rule applies to badges as well as arms and devices. The rule states: if a submission differs from a badge, device or arms only by a state of rotation, then the submission is in conflict. This is a rule to prevent the possible confusion that could result from seeing that submission in a rotated state. Since you might see it on a rotated round shield or a draped cloak or on a chest turned sideways, it would be easy for this to occur.

With regard to the "complete difference of charge" clause, I have been convinced that we should allow it to be invoked in the case of a device of several charges because otherwise it is impossible to check all the conflicts. Therefore, if a badge or device differs from another by having all its charges be completely different, then it does not conflict. Thus Argent, three lozenges azure does not conflict with Argent, three swords azure, but it would conflict with Argent, three mascles azure, as a lozenge and a mascle are not completely different, although they are different. When multiple charges are involved, the standard of "completely different" will be tougher than in the case of a single charge. In particular, if there are a lot of charges in an unusual arrangement, then it may not be possible to achieve complete difference, and so two full points would be required. An example would be nine bezants in cross within eight swords in annulo. This would be blazoned as a cross of bezants within an annulet of swords. If you then had another SCA Device which had nine lozenges in cross within eight dolphins naiant in annulo, the arrangements are so visually striking that the two would immediately be confused, even though the charges are different. This is a case where complete difference could not be achieved.

In keeping with the directive from the Board, I hereby approve the following titles: Meistersinger, Poetae Atlantiae, Brewmaster, Queen's Champion, King's Champion, Prince's Champion, Princess's Champioin, Baron's Champion, Baroness's Champion, Squire, Protegé, Apprentice, Journeyman, Fosterling, Magister, Lector, Regent, Chancellor, Sergeant at Arms, Dowager Princess of An Tir (special case), Fyrdmen, Huscarls, Thegn of Calontir, Warlod, Wardlord, Protector, Althing, Witan, Tanist, Champion, and Bard. The title of Bretwalda in use in Calontir for former Warlords is not acceptable according to what I know of the title. It was the title of certain ancient British chieftains/kings and so constitutes a title of nobility. Only the Board can authorize a new title of nobility. If any kingdoms have any titles in use that are not listed above, please send them to me so I can approve them.

I have been doing some thinking about the question of guilds and other groups registering devices. As it stands now in the SCA, they may register a badge under their own name, which their members may then display, as it is a badge. If they receive an Award of Arms, then they may register arms, which could then only be displayed by the head or ruling council of the guild or group. Thus, even if a group has arms, it would probably still want to have a badge that each of its members could display. In our period guilds, companies and other such entities had the same right as individuals to register arms with the College of Arms. As a company is immortal, the question of inheritance doesn't arise with corporate arms as it does with personal arms. Corporate arms were displayed just like personal arms.

In the SCA we see groups registering badges and then displaying them on banners just like devices. The ruling that they may only register devices unless they become armigerous actually means that it is easier for them to register what they want because their emblem only has to satisfy the lesser requirements for difference of a badge, even though they will display it like a device. It does seem that something is wrong here.

The question is, then: shall we allow non-household groups to register a device? If so, under what circumstances? One possibility is to continue as we have been doing. Another is to allow them to freely register a device, which would become their arms if they became armigerous. However, the main distinction between arms and a device is that arms can be inherited, whereas a device cannot. Since a group is immortal and can have no heir, this distinction is lost. Only the secondary distinction of being able to march in the Grand March is left. This distinction would still apply even if we allowed groups to register devices.

One possibility would be to allow groups to petition the Crown for a Royal Charter. If the Crown grants the group such a charter, then the group could register a device with the College of Arms. If the group later received an Award of Arms from the Crown, this device would become their arms. In this way, the devices of groups would have to satisfy the full device requirements for difference, and only seriously constituted groups would qualify, as they would have to first obtain a Royal Charter. This could add to court ceremony and give the Crown something else to hand out. To be really in period, the Crown could even charge a small fee (say $2) to go to the Kingdom treasury.

Let me know what you think about this issue. Shall we continue as stated in the Rules or shall we change and, if so, how shall we change?

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

Your servant,

Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel

Laurel King of Arms

WVS:cfc

Enclosures