October 21, 1983 A.S. XVIII
TO: The Members of the College of Arms
FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlassel, Laurel King of Arms
Greetings:
Enclosed is this month's LOA&R with 129 acceptances and 29 returns,
totalling158 actions. By November 1, 1983, 1 will need all LoCs on the following
four Lols (which I will process at my November 6 meeting): Meridies (8/11),
West (8/16), Middle (8/26), and Caid (8/30), totalling 84 submissions.
By December 10th I will need all LoCs on the following eight Lols (which
I will process at my December 18 meeting): East (9/7), West (9/11), Caid (9/13),
Middle (9/14 Aerdigwidder),Middle (9/14 Bran), East (9/17), Meridies (9/19),
and East (9/24), totalling 145 submissions
By January 7, 1984, 1 will need all LoCs for the following six LoIs (which
I will process at my January 15 meeting): Atenveldt (8/28), Atenveldt (8/29),
Middle (10/1), Middle (10/3), Atlantia (10/6), West (10/11), and Caid (10/12),
totalling 104 submissions. In addition, I will consider at the January meeting
those additional Lols dated in October that are actually postmarked to me
and to the College before November 1st.
There is no mistake in the letters for the December meeting. There really
were two Middle LoIs with the same date. Refer to them by the first name listed
on each, as shown above. (Don't anyone ever do that again. If you sent out
two Lols together, date one of them a day later.) Those two Middle Lols and
the East (9/24) Lol actually were postmarked in October, but I am assigning
them to the December meeting because it looks like the January meeting will
also be large. (If I receive no more Lols from October, I may move one or
two of those listed to the January meeting.)
I enclose a copy of the full roster of the College of Arms. Those with (M)
next to their names are commenters on the Mailing List. There have been some
changes, as usual, to the mailing list itself. Vesper has withdrawn from the
list. Allyn O'Dubhda is now Nereid Herald and is on the list. Master Yrjö
Kirjawiisas, a member of my staff, has been added. Lord Gawaine of Miskbridge,
Gold Falcon
Herald for Calontir has been added. Dragon is now separating submissions
between those from Calontir and those from the rest of the Middle. At the
September BoD meeting, the petition was approved for Calontir to become a
kingdom in February and thus Gold Falcon will become a Principal Herald then.
I have not received an LoC for three months from Aten, Crystal, or Star,
and for two months from Corona, Greenwood, or Monshō. Please get one out soon.
All Principal Heralds or their representatives should take care that copies
of their Lols go to EVERYBODY on the mailing list. (All Principal Heralds
and members of my staff are required to also send copies of LoCs promptly
to everybody on the mailing list.) I have not yet received the LoI or forms
for the Aten LoIs of 8/28 and 8/29 and thus have moved them to the January
meeting, pending their receipt. Commenters should look at my letters with
the lists (as above) and at LoCs you receive from others to see if any of
them list an LoI you have not received. If so, drop a postcard immediately
to the Principal Herald so you can get a copy. Don't just say you "didn't
get a copy." The meeting in November will be small (only 84 submissions) and
there will be a six-week gap until the December meeting. I urge everybody
to take advantage of this to catch up a month on commenting to prepare for
the December and January batches and then you can stay caught up from then
on.
Some miscellaneous matters concerning LoIs: 1)When filling out an LoI, keep
in mind that a submission should not be called a "resubmission" unless it
has previously seen action in my office. A submission returned at the kingdom
level and then resubmitted to kingdom may be a resubmission for you, but it
is a new submission to the College of Arms. 2) Please fill out the blazon
on the picture sheet to match the blazon on the LoI, legibly and in ink. If
the emblazon does not match the blazon, make a note on the picture sheet that
the emblazon has been changed. Otherwise, I will assume that the emblazon
is right and the blazon wrong, and reblazon it. 3) When a commenter lists
a conflict, be sure to give the complete blazon of the conflict. If I agree
with the conflict, I will need to give the complete blazon in the LOA&R,
which I cannot do if you haven't given it to me. If a conflict is cited but
the blazon is not given and I cannot find it myself, then the conflict will
be ignored as uncheckable.
4) All resubmissions on LoIs should include on the LoI the dates of previous
actions by my office and a brief description of what the previous problems
were and how they have been corrected. The date is necessary because the other
commenters must have it in order to look up the comments in the LOA&R
in which the submission was previously acted on. Without that date, the commenters
have to search through back issues to find the submission. If I continue to
see Lols where these dates are missing, I will have to start routinely returning
those submissions so the date can be added.
5) I have learned that in some areas letters are not being sent to submittors
informing them of the results of their submissions. Publishing excerpts from
my LOA&R in the newsletter is NOT sufficient notification. The comments
in the LOA&R are necessarily terse. All Principal Heralds are required
to ensure that individual letters are sent to each submittor informing him/her
of the results of her/his submission. If the submission is approved, then
the final blazon should be given, along with an explanation of any changes
in the name or blazon made by me. If the submission is returned, then the
reasons for its return should be given, along with suggestions for improvement.
(When a letter is sent to a submittor whose submission was returned, I suggest
that a set of submission forms be enclosed to assist and encourage the submittor
to resubmit.) Expand upon and explain the terse conflicts and notes in my
letter. They are intended for the Principal Herald and thus presuppose familiarity
with heraldry and our rules. 6) I ask everyone to periodically re-read the
Administrative Guidelines to make sure you are following all of the guidelines.
Pay particular heed to the standing requests. (It's been a long time since
I've seen rosters from a number of kingdoms.) I shouldn't have to keep restating
what is in the Administrative Guidelines.
More on Lols and procedure: Except for senior members of my staff, all appeals
should be sent through the Principal Herald to be placed in an LoI. Appeals
from senior members of my staff will be examined by me. If they are simple,
I will act on them. If they require discussion or comment by the College,
I will ask the appropriate Principal Herald to include them in the next LoI.
The same applies to me. If I find an error that can be corrected without need
for discussion, I will do so. If it requires discussion, I may ask the Principal
Herald to include it in the next LoI.
I always retain the right to contact a submittor directly about a submission,
if I have questions only the submittor can answer. I will, however, try to
keep the Principal Herald informed of actions taken on the basis of direct
contacts. In the case of the Khan/Khan-ad-Din question in Caid, I contacted
the household to find out what "memo Hazara” in their names meant, as that
was not on the LoIor in the forms. In addition to giving me that information,
they also said that they would accept Khan-ad-Din instead of Khan, which seemed
a fine compromise which I was (correctly) sure would be acceptable to Crescent.
As this was Friday night before my Sunday meeting, I thought to save a long-distance
telephone call to Crescent, since I was sure he would accept the change.
In this I admit that I erred, and that I should have called him. I hereby
apologize to Master Hrorek.
The volume of submissions has currently stopped rising, so restrictive commenting
measures are not necessary. If a commenter wishes to voluntarily specialize
in one or more references or types of submissions, that is fine. Let us know
you are doing so. There is no need for everybody to check everything, so long
as each thing is checked by more than one person.
THE ARMORIAL IS HERE! ! ! Sitting in front of me is the first copy of the
new, 212-page 1983 SCA Armorial. All Principal Heralds should receive copies
by the end of the month. (This edition of the Armorial is complete through
April 1983. Clarion states that bringing it up through October would delay
it too much longer. The final run will be complete.) Clarion is now printing
out the Ordinary, which will run over 600 pages and will (he hopes) be ready
by my November meeting. (He has to transfer data to a floppy and print from
the floppy. Each floppy holds about 30 pages, so the Armorial fills 7 floppies
and the Ordinary will fill 20-21 floppies. The total storage is over 2 megabytes.)
This edition is undoubtedly full of entry errors. Each Principal Herald
should check the entries from his/her kingdom and let us know what the mistakes
are so we can correct them. In addition, let us know if you have any suggestions
for organization and formatting. I would like to receive this information
before Christmas so we can print the final copy by Twelfth Night. That is
the copy that will be printed in quantity. When we have a final page count
and thus know the copy cost and postage, I will start accepting advance orders
for the Armorial & Ordinary. If anyone has access to printing for less
than 2.5¢/page and is willing to handle the printing of the Armorial
& Ordinary, let me know. We will be printing several hundred copies.
I need each Principal Herald to give me an estimate on how many copies would
be ordered from each kingdom so we can get a feeling for the print run. All
Principal Heralds are authorized to make and distribute as many copies of
the first-draft Armorial & Ordinary as you wish, keeping in mind that
they contain errors and that the final version should be out in January.
Each Principal Herald should check the Armorial to make sure that all branches
have submitted their names and that all branches at the Baronial or Provincial
level have submitted their arms. Make sure that all warranted heralds have
submitted their names and that all titled Pursuivants and Heralds have submitted
their devices. Master Eric Foxworthy is currently working on a supplement
for the Ordinary consisting of drawings of the unusual charges, which he hopes
will be ready by January. Master Yrjö Kirjawiisas is making updated lists
of heraldic titles and SCA Orders and awards. Mistress Rebecca of Twywn says
that the SCA Order of Precedence should be ready by January. All Principal
Heralds should make sure that Mistress Rebecca has been sent the most recent
OP and that she has been informed of all awards made since that OP was printed.
Progress continues on the Authentic Names book. After it is finished,
I will revise and reprint my Herald's Handbook. Lord Fergus de Maundeville
is working on a compilation of all current rulings and precedents. The Illiton
Pursuivant has suggested that a list of all available SCA heraldic materials
be compiled. This is a good idea. I would like to ask all of you to send me
a list of those heraldic flyers, handouts, handbooks, articles, lecture notes,
etc., in your area or that you know of, with information on number of pages,
cost of purchase or printing, address to write to for copies, persons to
contact for copies, etc. I will then try to compile a list of all of these.
I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of any of these that you think
I might not have a copy of.
On to current policy discussions in the College and follow-up topics from
the questionnaire: We will consider protecting, on a case-by-case basis, names
of famous SCA members who did not register their names. I ask each Principal
Herald to make a list of those Royalty and other notables from that kingdom
who should be considered for such protection. This protection would not count
as registration of the name and would not be as thorough as the protection
given to registered names. The SCA Order of Precedence will be useful in
this regard. It will indicate who has had name and arms registered and who
has not.
I have been preserving as much of a name as I can when I change it to be
able to register the device. If the device is not.acceptable and the name
needs significant changes, I simply return the name with suggestions. If the
device is acceptable and the problem is in the byname, I keep the given name
and either correct the by-name or substitute the name of the local branch
as a local byname. If the problem lies in the given name and there is a second
given name, I simply delete the unacceptable given name and use the second
one. If the only given name is not acceptable, I substitute the mundane given
name. If all of the name is unacceptable, I substitute the mundane given name
and the name of the local branch. In each case I check to see if the new
name conflicts. In the LOA&R we have begun, with this issue, to list how
the name was submitted, if it has been substantially changed, so you can
recognize the cases where that has occurred. These submittors have the right
to make a free name change if the change made here is not satisfactory. (Of
course, the free name change must still satisfy our rules.)
A given name that was created after 1600 will be considered as a made-up
name and must therefore satisfy the same requirements as made-up names, although
the meaning assigned to it when it was created still holds. Surnames that
were not used in period still may not be used as given names.
The College still stands by its desire that all members of the SCA submit
their name and device. Alternate persona names and household names constitute
only 2% of our volume, so I see no need to restrict them at this time. The
three-badge limitation does not apply for those members who have current rights
of resubmission for badges that were returned. Those resubmission rights
still hold, even if that would bring the total number of badges over three.
Augmentations are not inheritable. Similarly, restricted charges may not
be inherited unless the heir also has the right to them. Thus, if the parent
were a Royal Peer and had added a crown to the arms, when the child inherited
the arms as a device, the crown would be removed unless or until the child
also became a Royal Peer. If it is not possible to remove the restricted charge
(for example, if it is the only charge, or its removal would cause a conflict),
then the arms may not be inherited until such time as the heir has the right
to use the restricted charge.
The response so far has been that there is no forseeable need to change
the way we deal with badges, but that the membership should be educated and
encouraged to submit medieval-style, fieldless badges. I would like someone
to write an article on good badge design for T.I., similar to the great article
Mistress Hilary of Serendip wrote last year. (I don't have the time to do
it.) Please do what you can to educate people in your area. (Start with your
local heralds.)
I stand corrected by Lord Virgule. Evidently vert was used in personal Saracenic
heraldry and my previous information was wrong.
With regard to the suggestion made by Brachet and Batonvert that the fees
be raised to cover payment to the Laurel Secretary, 75% of the responders
accepted the concept of paying the Laurel Secretary for clerical services,
if such payment were necessary and if the SCA chose to pay other offices in
addition to the Corporate Secretary. 62% felt that raising the fees to cover
such payment was not advisable at this time. I recognized that, given the
obvious conflict-of-interest situation, it was not possible for me to raise
the fees to cover payment to my wife, but I did (and do) feel that, if such
payment were to be made, then taking the money from heraldic user fees was
morally preferable to taking it from subscription monies. Had a consensus
emerged that agreed with that stand, I would then have placed the suggestion
before the Board for them to decide, which would alleviate the conflict-of-interest
problem. Since the response was negative, I will abandon that concept. The
Board Poll includes a section on whether other offices should be reimbursed.
We will therefore wait for the results of that poll. If the membership does
not feel that any other office should be paid, then that is where it will
sit. If the membership does agree that other offices can be paid, then I
will place a request before the Board that the Laurel Secretary be one of
those offices. The Board will make the final decision. If funding is not
provided, we will continue to do the work as best we can, but deadlines may
slip on occasion and extra projects may not be possible. (There will be no
increase in the backlog beyond the standard three months.) (N.B.: Those of
you who suggested placing the position out for bid seem unaware that the
Laurel Secretary must be within easy commute distance from the files on irregular
notice, and I have already determined that there is no better candidate in
this area.)
Solar's proposal that we raise the fees and then give a discount to members
equal to the raise (i.e., charge a higher fee for non-members) has received
an even number of positive and negative comments. This matter is also on the
Board Poll, along with the question of whether only members should be able
to submit to the College of Arms. We will wait and see what the results of
the Board Poll are and then discuss the question if the membership votes in
favor of either of these proposals.
Solar's suggestion that a time limit be placed upon the right to a free
resubmission to encourage timely resubmissions was supported by 67% of the
responders to date. Whether such a policy is advantageous would appear to
vary from kingdom to kingdom. I do not feel that a limitation on resubmission
rights should be universally imposed right now. If a Principal Herald feels
that placing a time limit on free resubmissions would be beneficial in that
kingdom, I will consider granting permission for that Principal Herald to
try it in that kingdom as a test case. Such a limit should not be less than
one year and at least six months' warning should be given via an announcement
in the kingdom newsletter before such a policy takes effect.
I find that I am sometimes, as in the case of the recent poll, criticized
simultaneously for acting without consulting the opinions of a majority of
the College and for basing my actions upon the opinions of a majority of the
College. I would like to remind everybody that, although I do try to obtain
information and opinions from everyone, sometimes resorting to polls, the
College of Arms is not a democracy. Ultimately I must and do make all decisions.
I try very hard to take into account the advice of the College, and I recognize
that on each issue certain members of the College will be more knowledgeable
than others., and I try to give more weight to their arguments. Sometimes
issues arise in which I have no personal opinion one way or the other, and
on these I often do go along with a majority viewpoint. This should not be
taken to mean that my office is bound by majority opinion on all matters,
but rather that I value and consider all of your opinions.
But in order for me to consider your opinions, I first have to receive them.
Whenever important issues arise and I ask your opinions, I really do want
you to send them to me. You are not casting votes, but your opinions are heard
and considered. Each member of the College has the right to make proposals
to the College for consideration in his/her letters. If I think a proposal
has enough merit to warrant discussion, I will repeat it in my letters so
everyone can see it, as I have done with the recent suggestions from Brachet,
Batonvert, and Solar.
On a personal note, I would like to announce that at the West's October
Crown Tournament Mistress Cynthia was admitted to the Order of the Pelican
for her efforts as Founding Co-Editor of Notus (precursor of Popular Chivalry
in Meridies; Notus was a brother wind of Boreas, Zephyr, and Eurus), founding
Seneschal of the (then Principality) Kingdom of Meridies, Assistant Editor
of the Page, and as Laurel Secretary. She is also currently music director
for the quartet consisting of Clarion, Eveline of Shoreham, her and me; we
sing period part songs at events and, being particularly fond of works by
Morley and in view of our varying size-- from a trio to quintet and back again--we
call ourselves Morley or Less.
But I digress. At the September Board meeting I asked the BoD about the
question of the adoption of arms and badges registered to an extinct group
by a new group forming in the same area. The Board had previously ruled that
the names of extinct groups could not be re-used. The Board and I agreed
that the case with arms and badges was somewhat different. The conclusion
was that a new group could adopt a differenced version of the arms and badges
registered to an extinct group in the same area, these differenced versions
then being registered under the new group's name. I have applied this ruling
to the case of Sundragon in Atenveldt, with the difference being the addition
of clouds to the rainbows to make them consistent with period usage (see
pp. 2 and 3 of LoA&R).
The Board authorized Mistress Alison von Markheim, Corona Herald, to draft
and print in T.I. a Grand Demographic Survey of the SCA membership, and that
the question of a 1600 vs. 1650 cut-off should be included along with other
questions of interest such as the geographical scope of the SCA, whether there
should be a starting date, plus any other questions the Board or the other
Corporate Officers come up with. We will include the question of Elvish names.
Mistress Alison will produce the poll and analyze the results. I will advise
her on it. Anyone in the College having questions s/he would like to suggest
for inclusion should send them to her, with a copy to me.
The Board accepted my proposal for a change to Corpora to rectify the situation
with Royal Peers and Patents of Arms. I also presented a number of policies
dealing with titles and ranks that should be considered for inclusion in Policy
Statements for the sake of completeness, or at least be brought to the attention
of the membership. I have discovered in my researches for the Names Book
that the official English terms of address are in period and therefore may
be used. (See P. 44 of Titles & Forms of Address 9th ed.), London: Adam
& Charles Black, 1955.) This means that Peers can add the words "The
Right Honorable" before their title in written address, and that Territorial
Barons and Baronesses and holders of Grants of Arms can add the words "The
Honorable" before their titles in written address. (To be completely correct,
the words "The Most Noble" were used before Duke or Duchess.) Thus, if somebody
were writing to me in a highly formal fashion, they would have the option
of addressing the letter to "The Right Honorable Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel."
These terms are optional and need not be used if not desired. They are not
used in speech.
I arrived at the meeting at 5:00 p.m., having previously told the Board
I would be late, and just in time for consideration of my report. This was
convenient-- and fortunate--since I had not received a copy of the agenda
and thus didn't know what else was coming up besides the petition for kingdom
status for Calontir and Corona's proposed poll. Duke Siegfried, the College
of Arms' Ombudsman on the Board, was in the process of moving and his mail
was being forwarded, so he had not told me of anything coming up. I was therefore
quite surprised to discover that the first item of new business was a proposed
change to Corpora requiring the College of Arms to loosen its rules on names,
sent in by Vesper, who had not sent me a copy.
Vesper was under the mistaken impression that the Board routinely sends
copies of items involving Corporate Offices to those Corporate Officers.
This is not the case. While the Steward gets a full Board packet for each
meeting, the other Corporate Officers are neither notified nor sent copies
of anything submitted to Board unless their Ombudsman on the Board chooses
to do so. The agenda itself is very terse and says little about what an item
deals with. It arrives (if it arrives) only a week or less before the meeting.
Therefore, anyone who sends something to the Board that influences a Corporate
Office should send a copy to that Corporate Officer. In this case, Vesper
should not only have sent a copy to me but also to the members of the College.
(I am not mad at Vesper personally, and I acknowledge his right to make such
a petition to the Board, but I am irritated at the violation of normal procedure
and the resultant lack of notice, as all three possible means of notice failed.)
Vesper had realized that the College was simply following the dictates of
Corpora in its name rules. Corpora Section IV.C.3.b. states: The College of
Arms is entitled and required to establish and-make known rules to ensure
the uniqueness and historical validity of the names and devices used by members
and groups, and the historical validity of titles of office. These rules shall
include regulations protecting the right of each member to the name and devices
which he or she has registered for use within the Society. The requirement
that the College ensure that names be historically valid before registering
them is the basis of our rules requiring names to be consistent with period
practice. Vesper proposed the addition to Corpora of a statement saying that
a name was acceptable unless it was contrary to period practices in such
a manner as to detract from the enjoyment of the Current Middle Ages by a
significant portion of the membership. Essentially, this would have restricted
our rules to the offensiveness clause and conflicts.
Before debating the proposal, the Board polled its own members and unanimously
agreed that the current name rules were too strict and that changes to Corpora
allowing the College of Arms to ease its rules on names should be considered.
As Duke Siegfried and I were already going to be working on wording for an
announcement to the newsletters dealing with the question of Royal Peers and
Patents of Arms and with the heraldic policies, the Board assigned the two
of us to draft a proposed change to Corpora to be sent to the newsletters.
(In fact, I delayed this LOA&R until this announcement was ready.) Duke
Siegfried's revised draft is enclosed. The BoD will consider this on or before
its November 20 meeting and will send the final wording to the newsletters.
This change would read into Corpora for the first time the offensiveness clause
directly and a statement of what level of authenticity is required. We would
still have to define just what it means to say that a name is or is not "clearly
inconsistent with period naming practices or current SCA usage." I proposed
that the question be included in Corona's survey so we could ask other questions,
such as how we should define “consistency with period practices," but the
Board felt that, as a Corpora change, it should be sent to the newsletters
separately.
The unanimous agreement by the members of the Board that the rules of the
College on names are too strict would seem to mean that we will have to loosen
our name rules whether or not Corpora is actually changed. If the change is
made, we will have to loosen up further than if the change is not made, and
we will also have to deal with the question of defining what "current SCA
usage" is and what it means to say a name is or is not "consistent" with it.
The Board will rule on the change at its May 1984 meeting.
As I see it, we can (1) wait until then and, if the change is adopted, redefine
our rules in accordance with whatever final wording is chosen; (2) assume
that the change will be made as currently worded and discuss and prepare changes
to our rules so as to be ready to implement the change when it occurs; or
(3) change our rules before May, either in the hopes that by doing so we
will convince the Board there is no need to change Corpora or on the theory
that, if we are going to have to loosen up, then we might as well do it sooner
than later.
Before I decide on a course of action, I would like to know the opinions
of the College on the matter. Which of the above courses of action (or any
other) do you prefer? Should the College try to fight the change? Do you agree
that the name rules should be loosened? How should we loosen them if they
are loosened? How would you define "current SCA name usage"? How would you
define whether or not a name is "clearly inconsistent with period naming practices
or current SCA usage"? What guidelines should we follow? Do the people in
your area think the name rules are too strict? I will give submittors more
benefit of the doubt, but I will take no other action until I hear from you
(i.e., at least until the December meeting). I ask that you send me your opinions
in an expeditious manner. When the final announcement appears in the newsletters
and you send your opinions to the Corporate Secretary, please send me a copy
so I can compile a consensus of the College for the Board.
I covered all current proposals under discussion within the College in this
letter to make room for this larger discussion. If the SCA membership is unhappy
about our name rules then we will have to change them, but I must say that
I had hoped we were done with major rules changes. I guess we live in interesting
times.
Pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I remain
Your servant,
Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel
Laurel King of Arms
WvS:CFCvS
Enclosures: College of Arms roster
Preliminary Draft of BoD announcements
LOA&R
Created 122701T14:35:43