August 19, 1983 A.S. XVIII
TO: The Members of the College of Arms
FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlassel, Laurel King of Arms
Greetings:
Enclosed is the August LOA&R, with 142 acceptances and 55 submissions
returned to the submittors, for a total of 197. By September 3, 1983, 1 will
need all LoCs on the following nine Lols, which have a total of 142 submissions:
Atenveldt (5/30), Caid (6/3), Meridies (6/3), Ansteorra (6/6), West (6/8),
Middle (6/9), Caid (6/21), Middle (6/25), and Atenveldt (6/26).
By October 1, 1983, 1 will need all LoCs on the following six Lols, totalling
111 submissions: East (7/9), East (7/10), Atlantia (7/14), An Tir (7/19),
West (7/20), and Middle (7/22). By October 29, 1983, 1 will n6ed LoCs on Meridies
(8/11), West (8/16), and all other Lols dated in August. The October 1st
LoCs represent a slight breather, but I expect the usual flood of submissions
after Pennsic.
There have been changes to the mailing list. Brachet's new address is 2322
Russell Street, Berkeley, CA 94705. Nereid has resigned and should be removed
from the list. Add Triton back onto the list. Joanna de Bocage has changed
from Archive to Ensign Pursuivant. Lord Allyn O'Dubhda's new address is c/o
Alan Dowd, 12502 Oakwood Drive, Woodbridge, VA 22192. (He is now commenting
as part of Triton's staff.) I need to receive an LoC from Dragon, as it has
been three months since her last LoC.
I appreciate the work all of you are doing with the increased workload.
Please remember to not let the strain of work result in overly biting comments
or personal attacks. Irreverent comments and firm objections. are fine, but-personal
attacks should not be included in comments. Object to the submission, but
do not disparage the submittor, who may not know better. I have noticed an
increase in the number of good heraldic submissions and I congratulate you
all on this. The number of conflicts with Papworth has also gone down. On
the other hand, this month's batch was very slow to process at my meeting
due to an excessive number of devices that violated rules such as having four
layers or color on color, things that should never appear on an LoI. I urge
all Principal Heralds to strive to weed out obvious violations of the rules.
Please make sure than when a submission is a resubmission, you give the date
of the LOA&R in which it was previously considered, and state a short
summary of the actions taken on it and the changes made to it in the resubmission.
In this way, it will be clear to the commentors just what is happening and
what they should be commenting and checking on. It is particularly important
that all information on names be included in the LoI, as name checking can
be the most time-consuming process. Be sure to indicate which submissions
are new, which are previously approved, and which are resubmissions.
Heralds at all levels should actively discourage the use of the discouraged
practices, consulting with the submittor to see if s/he can be talked into
a more medieval alternative. It is better to take a month now to confer with
the submittor than to have to lose three months if the CoA returns it later,
and the results are often greatly improved submissions, which are easier for
the rest of the commentors to check. It is up to the Principal Heralds to
make sure that branch submissions are supported by the membership of the branch.
Petitions need not be sent to me, although they are a good method whereby
the Principal Herald can check for support.
Be careful about checking for conflicts in Lols. if you are unsure, mention
the possible conflict in the LoI so the other commentors can express their
opinions on the possible conflict. If a commentor finds a possible conflict,
then it should be included in the LoC for me to consider. I can always decide
that it isn't a conflict, but if I do not know of it, I cannot make a decision.
On the other hand, do not include conflicts that clearly are not conflicts.
Batonvert and Brachet have made a number of proposals to me dealing with
the increased workload of submissions that I wish to get your opinions on.
First of all is the increased load at my end. My Lady Secretary and I each
put in 15 to 20 hours per week on this office. This has eaten up nearly all
of my free time, with the result that I have little time to work on the Names
Book. In fact, I have taken the book about as far as I am competent to take
it. What is needed now is for a linguist to do the final editing for linguistic
accuracy. My Lady has a degree in this field, and would be ideally suited
for this, but this would add still more to her workload. The problem is that,
while I am doing interesting work in heraldry, my field of interest, and have
the reward of public feedback and the making of policy decisions, the Laurel
Secretary does routine clerical work and typing which, while vital to the
CoA, has no such rewards. My work is done in my spare time and does not interfere
with my mundane employment and, in fact, provides some variety. My Lady Cynthia
is a former legal secretary and currently a free-lance typist, transcriptionist,
and editor. Her work is of such a quality that she has more paid work offered
to her than she has time to do, and so must often turn down work assignments
for lack of time.
The reason she lacks the time for these projects is the 15 to 20 hours she
puts in for my office. Thus she often must turn down work paying $12 per hour
to do exactly the same sort of work for the SCA for free, with a resulting
loss in income of up to $200 per week. This has gotten to be a financial strain,
and yet the work must be done. I do not have the time or skill for it and
we have already pretty well tapped the volunteer labor market here, given
that the Corporate Office of the SCA and the Vesper Office have already soaked
up most of the volunteer clerical help.
Batonvert and Brachet propose that the Laurel Secretary be paid for the
clerical help, in the same way that the Corporate Secretary of the SCA is-paid
for the corporation's clerical work. Indeed, the Laurel Secretary is to the
College of Arms as the Corporate Secretary is to the Board of Directors.
I do not believe that line officers in the SCA should be paid, but I support
the idea of paying clerical help when necessary. The Board's current poll
of the member- ship asks about paying the various corporate officers and
the Steward is currently paid $750 per month. I will not put in any request
for funds for my job, as I do not feel that I, as a line officer, should
be paid. I do feel that, if any positions outside of the Corporate Secretary
are to be paid, then the Laurel Secretary should be paid. This would then
allow Mistress Cynthia to turn away paying clients in order to do the work
of the College without such great loss in income, with the result that she
could do more projects for the College, such as finish the Names Book and
help me re-issue the Heralds' Handbook. The Laurel Secretary would be paid
at the same rate as the Corporate Secretary (which is currently, I believe,
$3.75 per hour).
There is still the possibility that the Board will not fund payment for
any other office. The poll did not ask about paying clerical help but instead
asked about paying the corporate officers. If enough who feel, like myself,
that clerical work should be paid but not policy setters take the question
literally and answer in the negative, then the Board may decide not to pay
any other offices. The problem in the Laurel office will still be there. We
must also look to the future: I will not always be Laurel, and the next Laurel
may not have either 40 hours a week of spare time or a Laurel Secretary willing
to put in 20 hours a week of free clerical help. It would then be necessary
to hire clerical help in order to guarantee that the work was done on a timely
basis. I'm sure you will all agree that never again should the College accumulate
the sort of backlog it had in 1979. Volunteer labor should be used as much
as possible, but it cannot always be counted upon to be there. Thus the Laurel
Secretary could be set up like the Corporate Secretary, with some of the
work volunteered and the rest paid. The Laurel Secretary could do the work
herself and be paid or hire others to do some of it, with the money coming
out of her budget.
The College of Arms and the kingdom Colleges of Heralds have always prided
themselves on being financially self-sufficient. Except for special projects
such as the 1979 Conclave, where the Board funded travel costs for the Principal
Heralds, the CoA has not had to ask for money from the Board. Alone among
the offices, the Heralds have always paid for their own expenses out of user
fees charged for registration of submissions. Since we cannot count on the
Board to fund the Laurel Secretary, and since the volume of submissions has
reached the point where doing so is necessary, Batonvert and Brachet propose
that the fees for submissions be raised enough to pay for clerical help, needed
equipment such as new filing cabinets, and start-up costs for publishing needed
references such as the Ordinary & Armorial, the Names Book, and the SCA
Heralds' Handbook.
Lest you worry about suddenly skyrocketing fees, let me share some figures
with you. I currently charge, at my level, $2 for a name and device, and $1
for just a name or a name change. This is what has been charged by my office
since Mistress Karina’s tenure. This month and next month I will process a
total of 320 submissions, for a total of 500 actions. 417 of these will be
for new names, devices and badges, and therefore be paid for, and 83 are resubmissions,
appeals or branch submissions, and therefore free. Of the paid submissions,
204 are for names and 213 are for devices and badges (163 arms/devices and
50 badges). The fees for these two months, at $1 per paid action, thus come
to $417, or $208 per month. This just pays for the regular expenses of my
office and the office expenses of my staff (Virgule, Batonvert, and Greenwood).
This letter you are reading constitutes the largest monthly publication in
the SCA, and it is sent free to all CoA commentors, Principal Heralds, Principality
Heralds, and regional heralds. Subscriptions to this letter just cover cost
(if that). The Laurel Office has about one month's income in its checking
account, on average.
If the Laurel Secretary were to be paid $3.75 (only a little above minimum
wage, and less than a-third of her mundane rate) per hour and put in 20 hours
per week, this would come to 87 hours per month, or $325 per month. If we
raised the fees by $1 per name and $2 per device or badge, this would have
generated for August and September an additional income of $315 per month,
or essentially what was needed. If the figure were 15 hours per week, then
that would come to 65 hours per month or $244, leaving a surplus of $71. As
the actual work varies between 15 and 20 hours per week and as the number
of submissions and therefore the income is steadily growing, there would on
the average be a small surplus to be used for buying references, file cabinets,
and as start-up money for publications. This small surplus would also be
an inflation hedge, allowing us to avoid raising rates to cover inflation
for several years. The result would be a charge at my level of $5 for a name
and device and $2 for a name or name change, and $3 for a badge or device
change alone. At the local level, this would work out to a total fee of about
$8 for a name and device. Because this is a one-time-only expense for most
people, this is hardly exorbitant. Indeed, looking at the past, I see that
the College has historically charged about one-half of a year's subscription
to T.I. When T.I. and the newsletters ran $10 for a year's subscription, the
total fee was about 5 for a name and device. Before that, when the subscription
cost was $7, the total fee was closer to $3.50. One- half of the current subscription
would be $10, and thus $8 would be well under the historic fee. In order
not to bankrupt the kingdom colleges, the old fee could remind for those
submissions returned at the kingdom level in the past and then resubmitted
after the raise in fees, or we could choose to require a supplement fee (I
prefer the former if it is financially feasible).
That, then, is the proposal to solve the workload problem for the immediate
future for the Laurel Office. The increasing number of submissions would pay
for the increasing amount of clerical work. My own workload would be manageable
for several years to come. I am in favor of this proposal, but obviously
I feel that I cannot just impose it. I ask for your comments and suggestions.
Besides the overload at my end, there is also the increased workload
for the commentors. Batonvert and Brachet second my call for improved quality
of LoIs and the submissions in them so that there will be fewer of the dubious
submissions that eat up such a disproportionate time. If the workload gets
too great, it might be necessary for some commentors to specialize, with one
checking against Papworth while another checks against the SCA Armorial and
Ordinary. What do you think? Do you have problem with workload? Are we headed
for a future overload problem? Do you have any suggestions for improving
matters?
Batonvert and Brachet bring up the possibility of somehow limiting the
volume of submissions. A quota of submissions considered per month would just
result in a backlog, and I swore to the Board that there would never again
be a backlog. Limiting the right to submit to just SCA members or to just
armigers would certainly limit the number of submissions, but at the cost
of giving up the goal of the College or provide everyone with the opportunity
of registering and then encouraging them to do so. There have been a number
of frivolous badge submissions, and raising the rates to pay for clerical
help would probably make people think twice before submitting badges that
they didn’t really need. We could decide that the College can no afford the
time for the luxury of registering alternate persona names and household names,
since each may be used without having to register it. In August and September
there are a total of 13 such names, with a like number of badges. As the
badges could be registered anyway as personal badges, such as a change (no
longer allowing the registration of household and alternate persona names)
would only provide a 3% reduction in the number of actions- What do you think
on this matter? Is there or will there in the future be a need to limit submissions
in some way? If so, How? We could limit the number of badges a person can
register, which brings us to a matter I’m sure you have been waiting for:
the results of the Heraldic Questionnaire.
The questionnaire was a great success. Out of some 93 sent out, there
were 47 responses, over 50%. A majority felt that such questionnaires should
be repeated when necessary. The winning bid for the 1984 Heraldic Symposium,
by a vote of 25 to 17 was the Barony of Loch Salann in Atenveldt. Both committees
put out good bids, and I encourage the Middle to hold a kingdom-wide symposium
and later try again for the national symposium. Anyone having suggestions
for next year’s Symposium should contact Lord Gustav. I would like to receive
preliminary bids for the 1985 Heraldic Symposium by January 1, 1984, with
final bids in by March 1, 1984. I will send out a questionnaire in March and
announce the results after my June 1984 meeting. The winning bidders will
thus be able to attend the 1984 Symposium already knowing they have won,
and can sell early memberships and give out information. This has worked out
very well in science fiction conventions and should work well for the Heraldic
Symposia.
For any who do not have copies of the bids for 1984, the 1984 Heraldic
Symposium wil be held on the weekend of August 24-26, 1984, in the Barony
of Loch Salann at Orson Spencer Hall, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah. The chairman will be Lord Gustav Athanius von Hausenstadt, Crystal Pursuivant,
and the editor of the Proceedings will be Mistress Rhonwen y Llysieuyddes,
Aten Principal Herald. They will be sending out more information soon.
There was considerable support (32 to 13) in favor of limiting the number
of badges an individual can register. The average number was 3. This allows
for a personal badge, a household badge, and one other for something else
(alternate persona, crest, secondary household, whatever). Effective with
LoIs dated on or after Sept. 1, 1983, the limit for badges for individuals
shall be 3. Anyone who currently has more than three badges will not have
to give up any, but thereafter anyone wishing to register a badge (including
keeping old arms as a badge) who already has three or more badges, must release
a badge to make room for the new badge. Branches of the SCA are exempt.
There was a split over protecting names of past SCA royalty whose names
were not registered, with a vote of 24 to 21 in favor. My decision is to acknowledge
the principle but leave it up to a case-by-case basis. Principal Heralds
are invited to make lists of famous members of their kingdoms from the past
(say, more than 5 years ago) whose names are not registered. These will not
be entered into the Armorial, but could be available as a separate historical
list.
By a wide margin (33 to 13) responders favored the use of a substitute
name when the device is acceptable. My decision is that, effective with the
LoIs dated on or after May 30, 1983 (i.e., with those I check at the September
meeting), when the Society name for an individual has been returned but there
is no conflict or rules violation or use of discouraged practices in the device
or arms, then I shall register the device or arms under a substitute Society
name consisting of the submittor’s miundane given name and the SCA branch
of residence of the submittor, used as a place name, provided that such a
substitute name itself satisfies the rules for names. (The Principality of
Drachenwald has reserved the use of “von Drachenwald,” and so the use of
a local branch name in Drachenwald would be necessary.) The substitute name
would be the submittor’s official registered Society name from then on, unless
the submittor later submitted a name change that was accepted. If the submittor
did not wish this option to be exercised, this should be noted on the form.
Query: Should a submittor whose device or arms was registered with a substitute
Society whose device or arms was registered with a substitute Society name
have to pay for the name change, or should it be free?
We will continue the current practice of arms being inheritable as devices,
with devices not being inheritable. Thus each new generation must become armigerous
to pass the arms onto the next. Augmentations shall not be inherited. Each
member must earn his/her own augmentation. (42 to 4) against inheritance of
augmentations.) The consensus (24 to 17) was that Returned to Submittor was
preferable to Rejected, and so the former shall continue to be used. The
response to allowing out–of-period given names that are otherwise consistent
with period usage for given names was 24 to 17 in favor. I am not sure how
to word a clear and consistent policy on this matter and so I ask for suggestions
before I change our rules. As I see it, it would be the submittor’s responsibility
to prove to our satisfaction that a name that was cited in references as having
come into use after 1600 was otherwise consistent with period naming practices
of a particular language and country and thus, were the name to be considered
as a made-up name, it would be found acceptable. Such proof would generally
come in the form of an appeal, although submitting such proof with the initial
acceptance could suffice for acceptance. Obviously, all such submissions
would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. What do you think?
There was a tie (24 to 23) on the question of allowing the use of two colors
for multiple divisions like barry or checky, and so we shall continue our
current prohibition. By majority support, we shall continue our current policy
on the variants of ermine, namely, that they may be combined only with those
tinctures which have sufficient contrast. (25 in favor, 16 for treating them
as a field semé of ermine spots, and 8 in favor of treating them as
full furs.)
There was a two-thirds vote (30 to 15) to reconsider the question of the
use of Elvish names. The vote on the use of Elvish to coin names was 23 for
banning it, 4 for allowing it, and 19 for polling the SCA on the question.
I have decided to poll the SCA, as this is a change in a policy that has stood
for 17 years and I feel the membership should be consulted. Such a poll will
also allow us to ask other burning questions, such as: Is there an initial
starting date for the SCA? Should the geographical scope be limited to Europe,
Europe plus adjoining lands, or the entire world? I have heard rumor of a
demographics poll of the SCA (long needed). If such is planned, we could
piggyback onto it our questions. Anybody have any good questions for such
a poll of the SCA? I will have to find somebody to handle the tabulation of
such a poll. I can write it.
There was a majority of support (21) for imposing a one-year moratorium
on reconsideration of any ruling unless there arose new evidence or indications
that the ruling was not working. Thus a person could only appeal a ruling
if there was new evidence or logic against that ruling. Similarly, once I
have ruled on a subject, I cannot choose to rule on it again, nor can I be
asked to do so, for a year unless there is new evidence or indications that
the ruling is not working.
There was a bare majority (26 to 21) in favor of banning lightning flashes.
My decision is that, beginning with all LoIs dated on or after September 1,
1983, the modern lightning flash, with its bevilled lines, is prohibited as
being out of period. The period-style lightning flash, which was an embattled
line with barbs at both ends, shall continue to be allowed. The modern cloudless
rainbow was opposed, 28 to 16. Therefore, effective the same date, all rainbows
must be of the period style--with clouds, although the bands may be of the
natural colors. Morbid heraldry was opposed, 27 to 17. I hereby rule, effective
the same date, that use of excessive morbidity shall be prohibited under the
offensive clause. Such cases will be handled on a case-by-case basis. I welcome
suggestions for guidelines. A single skull would be acceptable, but not a
skull cloven by an axe or an animal impaled of multiple weapons or dismembered
and bleeding. The vote was 36 to 9 against fimbriated chiefs or bordures.
Effective the same date, fimbriation will no longer be allowed for chiefs,
bordures, flaunches, gores, cantons, quarters, points, bases, mounts, chapé,
chaussé, tierces, and other such throughout abstract charges. The
only abstract throughout charges that may be fimbriated are the bend, bend
sinister, fess, pale, chevron, cross, saltire, pall, pile, and chevron inverted.
(Even fimbriating these is poor practice.)
By a vote of 40 to 6, effective with LoIs dated on or after September 1,
1983, overuse of proper is prohibited as being out of period. We will have
to work out good guidelines on just what is excessive use of proper. Do you
have any good suggestions for guidelines? My basic feeling is that the use
of more than two different types of proper charge or the use of a field semé
of complex proper charges is excessive use of proper. The use of proper charges
that cannot be recognized, such as specific species of pine trees, is excessive
use of proper. (You can have a basic pine tree proper, but do not try to specify
a White Pine.) The use of two different types of proper charges would be
a case-by-ease situation.
While the ultimate authority and responsibility for setting policy and ruling
on submissions is mine alone, rest assured that I shall always carefully consider.
the opinions of the College before making my decision. The College is functioning
better than it has ever done in the past, and this is in part due to the
pooling of knowledge and views of a larger number of better trained people.
I thank all of you who responded to the questionnaire and ask that you continue
to give me your opinions. I do not promise to agree with them, but I do promise
to listen to them.
Pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I remain
Your servant,
Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel
Laurel King of Arms
WvS:CFCvS
To All Golem Keepers:
The Clarion King of Arms has found a task which some computer programmer
may be able to perform: FMS-80, the CP/M database system being used for the
Armorial & Ordinary, sorts on ASCII code, so {A... Z) all come before
{a... z}. DJR, the parents of FMS-80, will not release high-level source code
for their sorting program. Clarion will supply a "hex dump" (a listing of
the program in hexadecimal notation) to anyone who feels sufficiently familiar
with the 8080 instruction set to disassemble it, so we can generate a compatible
program to sort in {A, a, B, b, ... Z, z) order. At the same time, perhaps
we can generate another compatible program.to ignore "the," 'tap," "of,"
etc., when sorting names. Send inquiries directly to the Clarion King of
Arms, Master Edmund Renfield Wanderscribe, c/o Ed Rush, 10417 Johnson Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014, (408) 257-4288.
WvS/CFCvS
Created 122701T14:43:32