April 21, 1983 A.S. XVII
TO: The Members of the College of Arms
FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlussel, Laurel King of Arms
Greetings:
Enclosed is this month's LoA&R, with 90 acceptances and 49 rejections,
for a total of 139. The next College of Arms meeting will be at the Atlantian
Heraldry Symposium. I will need by May 1, 1983, all LoCs on the Atlantia LoI
of February 21, 1983.
I will need by May 14 the LoCs on the following nine LoIs: Meridies (1/4),
West (1/9), Atenveldt (1/30), Middle (2/1), Meridies (2/4), East (2/10), East
(2/17), Middle (2/21), and East (2/24). This is a total of 239 submissions,
so this will take more work than normal for all of us.
I will need by June 4 the LoCs on the following eight LoIs: Caid (3/3),
West (3/5), Middle (3/10), West (3/13), Atenveldt (3/14), Trimaris (3/17),
Atenveldt (3/25), and Ansteorra (3/28). This is a total of 159 submissions.
Note that Trimaris sent out an LoI dated 3/17 and Pennon also sent out an
LoI dated 3/17. To avoid confusion, refer to them as Trimaris and Meridies,
respectively.
I will need by July 2 all LoCs on LoIs sent out in April, including the
following which I have received to date: Meridies (3/17), Caid (4/6), West
(4/10), An Tir (4/11), Caid (4/14), and Atlantia (4/10).
Please be sure to follow the Administrative Guidelines with regard to both
LoIs and LoCs. I enclose a one-page Supplement to them, summarizing all changes
to date. If anyone does not have a copy of the Guidelines, let me know and
I will send you one. Please be sure to pass them on to your successors when
you leave office.
As usual, there have been changes in the mailing list. Master Hrorek is
now Crescent Principal Herald. Master Eric Foxworthy has resigned for personal
reasons and the new Vesper Principal Herald is Master Richard of Seahaven
(Jonathan King, 6174 Bernhard Avenue, Richmond, CA 94805). Please replace
Beacon on your list with the new Pennon Herald, Vanora of Kintyre (Carol Parks,
Pine Trails #H-8, Spring Ridge Road, Clinton, MS 39056). Replace Star on
your list with the new Asterisk Herald, Claire RosMuire St. John (N. D. Wederstrandt,
8313 Burrell, Austin, TX 78758). Charles Stewart O'Connor is now Shield Herald
in the Middle (J. Patrick Hughes, P.O. Box 574, Scott AFB, IL 62225) and
will continue to comment. Most of you are doing well on comments. I need
an LoC from Aten (it's been three months).
Now that the majority of branches have submitted their names and arms, it
is time to go back to normal procedures. All Principal Heralds should make
sure that submissions for branch names and arms have enclosed with them the
required petition of support by either the officers or membership of the branch.
On LoCs, when one of you states a conflict, be sure to give the blazon of
the conflict. Without the blazon I usually cannot use the conflict, as I
must be able to tell the submittor what the submission is in conflict with.
The May recipient of the Duke Siegfried Papworth Fund will be the Crown Principality
of Lochac (Australia).
I have received a formal bid for next year's symposium from Atenveldt and
an informal one from the Middle. The absolute deadline for written bids is
the Symposium. After the Symposium, I will send out a questionnaire concerning
the bids asking which you would prefer to attend. The Atenveldt bid is to
hold it in the Barony of Loch Salann (Salt Lake City, Utah) on Labor Day weekend
of 1984. The location would be Orson Spencer Hall on the University of Utah
campus. The Chairman/Autocrat would be Gustav Athanasius von Hausenstadt,
who also would be the Editor of the Proceedings. Mistress Rhonwen y Llysieuyddes
would be Assistant Editor, and Mistress Leah de Spencer, Baroness of Loch
Salann, would be Assistant Autocrat. The Middle bid is to hold the symposium
on the weekend before Pennsic in Cincinatti. I do not know exactly where or
who is on the committee, although the Dragon Principal Herald would seem to
be one of them. Please refer to the April 1982 LoA&R for criteria on
submitting symposium bids.
Looking at the geographic spread of the various symposia, I see a good spread,
beginning with the 1979 Conclave in the West, the Caerthe Symposium in 1981,
the Meridies Symposium in 1982, the Atlantian Symposium in 1983, and apparently
either Atenveldt or the Middle in 1984. If we divide the country into three
regions, we have one symposium from the western area (An Tir/West/Caid), two
from the Central area (Middle/Atenveldt/AnsteOrra), and two from the Eastern
area (East/ Atlantia/ Meridies). To balance it out, I would like to encourage
the West, An Tir, and Caid to consider bidding for 1985. If Ansteorra gets
the bid for the 20th Anniversary Celebration, then holding the 1986 Symposium
in conjunction with that nine-day event would seem reasonable. I would like
to see the symposium move around, although the primary concern each year
will be which is the best bid.
Lady Dragon has suggested a formal semi-annual rules review, with all rules
changes happening at those two times. I am always willing to consider any
and all proposals from all of you. I don't think that this idea would really
work, though, since most rulings actually come from requests to me from others
for rulings, either in an LoC or LoI or in the form of test-case submissions.
While I could clump actions on proposals and appeals from letters, it would
be difficult to do so with actual submissions that require rulings without
significantly delaying action on many of them. There have been a number of
complaints about too many or too rapid rulings, with some merit. In the last
year and a half, I have been attempting to specify just what it means for
submissions to be "consistent with period usage," as we declared they should
be over a year ago. I have tried to do this with as much input from you as
I could get. I believe that we now have a fairly good system worked out. I
expect the number of rulings to decline. I will certainly make sure that I
do not spring Rules changes unannounced. (Please note the difference between
changes of general rules and 2) specific rulings and interpretations.) So
long as I continue to receive submissions that require rulings, I will be
forced to rule. SCA members seem to have a real knack for coming up with things
we didn't think of before and so haven't covered in our rules. Please keep
in mind the fact that our written rules are actually guidelines detailing
how we try to handle submissions. Each submission is treated on a case-by-case
basis on its own merits, with the rules providing the framework by which it
is judged. Any time a new name or charge or practice is proposed, it is up
to the Submitter to convince us that such is acceptable. If all submitters
submitted only provably medieval names and devices, there would be no need
for new rulings.
Dragon's proposal does have some merit, however. As a trial of the concept,
I will take the opportunity of the questionnaire on next year's symposium
bids to include a number of questions on heraldic rulings that have come up.
These will be things like, How should we treat the ermine variants with regard
to contrast, Should we ban any specific charges such as lightning bolts,
death's heads, natural rainbows throughout, etc., Should we allow those out-of-period
names that are consistent with period usage, and so forth. If any of you
have specific proposals or questions you would like included in such a questionnaire,
send them to be BEFORE May 21. We'll then see what it is like to try to handle
all such questions as a single batch. (The feedback will tell me if any actions
should be taken.)
I enclose a six-page Guide to Heraldic Submissions. I find that Kraken's
two--page introduction is unbeatable in its simplicity and clarity, and I
recommend it highly. Mistress Hilary of Serendip's article on armorial style
in T.I. does a very good job of handling that area. Therefore, I have put
together a summary of the Rules for Heraldic Submissions aimed at people who
have some heraldic knowledge and want a guide to submissions, but not the
whole set of detailed rules. Printed back-to-back, it should make a good handout.
I also enclose a summary of the encouraged and discouraged practices sent
in to me. After the Symposium, I will see about writing up a formal list,
but this summary should be helpful for now as a guide to what various of
you wish to encourage or discourage.
Batonvert has brought up a number of points. I am willing to allow those
charges which naturally are grey to be blazoned as proper and colored grey,
in order to specify that grey is desired, so long as it is understood that,
with respect to contrast, grey is considered a variant of argent and is judged
accord-ingly. Stone and steel are grey when proper. (Heraldic dolphins have
no default tincture.) A stone tower proper would thus be grey but would be
treated as if it were argent for purposes of contrast. Thus it could not be
placed upon argent or Or, nor could an argent or Or charge be placed upon
it. Batonvert has proposed that we allow fieldless badges to be displayed
as tinctureless outlines and then cease to register tinctureless badges other
than herald's seals. It is already the case that all registered submissions
can be used as tinctureless outlines without having to register those tinctureless
versions. That is why two devices cannot have the same outline.
In answer to questions, the date I give for LoCs is one week before my meeting
so I can check through them the weekend before for items that need to be referenced.
By listing those dates rather than the dates of the meetings, I have found
that fewer letters arrive after the meeting. The College allows, but discourages,
the registration of those name diminutives that appear in the references
as having been used as legal names in period. Thus, if you find Maud listed
as a documented period name, then Maud can be used. A second-level nickname
like the affectionate Maudy would not be allowed because it is not so listed.
The use of the full formal name, in this case Matilda, is encouraged, but
not required.
I have been asked for guidelines on offensive submissions. Both Batonvert
and Kraken provided good summaries, which I will try to combine here. A submission
is offensive if it violates seriously the spirit of the Society in such a
way as to offend those who hear or see it. The spirit of the Society is based
to a great extent upon the rules of courtesy. It would be discourteous to
use a name or emblem that would offend other members of the Society. The College
therefore tries to avoid registering submissions that would so violate the
spirit of the Society. Offensive submissions can be categorized as follows:
1) Scatological: names, expressions, charges, or patterns dealing directly
or indirectly with excrement or other such matters. This includes outhouse
doors, latrine pits, farting animals, etc.
2) Pornographic: anything that displays or suggests pornographic images
or practices, such as obscene slang, names like John Nunraper, explicit anatomical
details, blazons like Potent, a cock rising, or other allusions.
3) Explicit magical or religious symbolism: either using excessive symbolism
enough to offend adherents of other religions or else using defaced or basely
treated religious symbols in a manner that would offend the adherents of that
religion. Religion is a serious matter that should not be treated as a joke.
(Good period usage of religious symbols in a restrained manner by adherents
of those religions is perfectly proper and is to be encouraged, as the Middle
Ages were a time of intense religious feeling.) Thus, while an image of the
Virgin Mary would be a period usage, having the Virgin Mary and three angels
and a cruci-fix would be excessive use, while having the Virgin Mary impaled
by a spear would be a base treatment. Stars and moons, while magically significant,
are not excessive. A demon displayed within a pentagram is excessive.
4) Excessive violence or suffering: use of names like John the Disemboweler,
or display of charges like instruments of torture, or bleeding torn pieces
of animals or men, or animals or men impaled by weapons in a gruesome manner.
5) Explicit political symbolism: use of symbols of political factions offensive
to much of the membership (such as a swastika), or of political symbols that
are out of period and therefore inappropriate in the Society (bend sinister
and bordure combinations in the No X vein, Greenpeace symbols, etc.), or use
of political symbols in a defaced or basely treated manner.
6) Joke submissions: the submission of names or emblems intended as jokes
rather than serious submissions. (This does not include canting arms.) Period
style submissions that happen to embody a pun are acceptable (such as the
seven vert ewes), but submissions which are torqued around into non-period
forms to embody an obvious joke are not. This includes false variations of
names for joke purposes, such as Decrease Mather.
7) Pretentiousness: claiming, or seeming to claim, more for oneself than
one has by right. This includes such practices as the use of royal surnames,
the use of noble surnames in conjunction with the use of a badge of that surname,
the use of symbols reserved for specific honors or orders or achievements,
the use of titles not earned, etc.
As is obvious, these categories are often rather subjective. The standards
of offensiveness vary from culture to culture. Since we are a modern culture
re-creating the cultures of the Middle Ages, I feel that we should avoid registering
submissions that would be offensive either today or in the cultures of our
period. Thus, when examining the seven categories above, one must keep in
mind the different standards of medieval and modern cultures and avoid being
offensive in either. The above categories are guidelines, and are not necessarily
the only possibilities. Claims of offensiveness should not be made lightly,
and should be based upon the fact that one or more members of the College
or some specific other people were actually offended or that a specific group
would definitely be offended. All claims of offensiveness will be handled
on a case-by-case basis. Principal Heralds should try to counsel Submitters
away from any submission that appears to violate any of the above categories.
If it comes out in an LoI and is in fact found to be offensive, then it will
be publicly declared to be so in my LoA&R, to the possible embarrassment
of the Submitter. So try to keep such submissions out of LoIs. In many cases
the offensiveness was unintentional and the submittor, if privately so informed
at the local level, will remedy the situation.
I would like to thank all of you who sent in suggestions for those topics
I asked about. I value your aggregate opinions and knowledge, and often rely
heavily upon them. I am always open to suggestions or complaints, and wish
to encourage active communication between me and all of you and between yourselves.
The College of Arms is functioning very well, and I am proud of it. I understand
that next month will be difficult due to the large number of submissions (we
will be having a two-day meeting to take care of them). The following month
is much lighter and I hope that you will be able to catch up somewhat. I
would like to see most LoCs come out within two months of the date the LoI
is received, so the Principal Heralds and others have a chance to reply to
comments on those LoIs. I make sure that I allow at least 10 weeks between
the date an LoI is mailed to you and the day I process it. If you are able
to keep up with submissions at all, you should be able to keep up at a two-month
lag, possibly after a catch-up period. I know how time-consuming offices can
be (my Lady and I put in over 30 hours a week in the Laurel Office between
us, which doesn't count the time put in by my staff), and so I can only urge
you, if possible, to try to allow time for the Principal Heralds to reply
before I rule on an LoI. Please be sure to read my letters and the other materials
I send out carefully and let me know if there is anything you don't understand,
so that time isn't wasted through misunderstandings.
Pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I wish you a Happy Society New
Year and remain
Your servant,
Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel
Laurel King of Arms
WvS:CFCvS
Enclosures: LoA&R
Supplement to Administrative Guidelines
Guide to Heraldic Submissions
Encouraged/Discouraged Practices
Created 122701T14:10:25