December 26, 1983 XVIII
To: All Members of the College of Arms
From: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms
Greetings:
Enclosed is this month’s LOA&R, with 125 acceptances and 39 returns,
for a total of 164. I would like to complement the Principal Heralds on the
increasing quality of submissions. By January 7, 1984 I will need all LoC's
on the following 9 LoI’s (which will be processed at my January 15, 1984 meeting):
Atenveldt (8/28), Atenveldt (8/29), Middle/Calontir (10/1), Middle (10/3),
Atlantia (10/6), West (10/11), Caid (10/12), Calontir (10/16), An Tir (10/28),
totalling 124 submissions.
By February 4, 1984 I will need all LoC's on the following 11 LoI’s (which
will be processed at my February 12 meeting): Atlantia (10/24), Calontir (10/25),
Middle (10/26), East (11/5) Atenveldt (11/10), Atenveldt (11/14), West (11/14),
Meridies (11/15), Caid (11/16) East (11/16), Middle (11/20), totalling 152
submissions. By March 10, 1984 I will need all LoC's on the LoI’s postmarked
by December 31, 1983 whichwill be processed at my March 18 meeting. I have
so received: Atlantia (12/7), Calontir (12/11), West (12/12), Caid (12/13),
& Atenveldt (12/14). I would like to receive financial reports from each
kingdom by January 31.
There seems to be some confusion over the commenting time. Originally LoI’s
were called 30 Day Letters, because the other Principal Heralds had 30 days
to comment on them before they were processed, if they were processed on schedule.
When I took office I extended this to 60 days, to give more time to comment.
I generally hold my meetings on the third Sunday of the month, at which time
I process all LoI’s sent out in the month three months previous. Thus in
my December meeting I processed all submissions sent out in September. Assuming
a LoI was sent out on the last day of the month and that it took four days
to be delivered and four days for the LoC commenting on it to be delivered,
this still leaves 60 days to prepare the LoI and has the LoC arriving at
least a week before my meeting. This thus gives the Principal Heralds at
least a chance to reply to the LoC's before I act upon the LoI’s the LoC's
comment on. If a LoI is sent out on the first day of the month then there
are 90 days available. The average time available is thus 75 days. I ask that
all commentors hold to the 60-day (two months) schedule. This will give the
Principal Heralds an average of two weeks to reply to LoC's.
The most important thing is for me to receive the LoC's before my meeting,
and so I will accept LoC's that arrive the day before my meeting, but I ask
that all commenters hold to the 60 day limit so that the Principal Herald
and other members of the College can reply. (If you can get your LoC's out
faster that is even better.) Many times an objection has been raised that
has been settled by a reply from another member of the College. If the reply
reaches me before I process the submission I can deal with it at the meeting.
If it comes in too late then there has to be the delay of an appeal or resubmission.
I also want the letters a week before my meeting so I can have the time to
read them through beforehand.
With regard to the LoA&R’s and the questions or suggestions I raise
in these letters, I ask everyone in the College to try to deal with them
as they happen, ie on a 30 day basis. Do not just put them in the stack with
the other LoI’s to be gotten to in order. Read the LoA&R’s immediately
and reply to them in your next letter, or send out a letter just commenting
on the LOA&R if you do not have any LoC's ready. Topics for discussion
in the College require time for replies to my letter, then comments on the
replies by other members.
In order to have a dialogue there must be time for back and forth discussions.
We cannot wait 6 months for every issue. I try to treat my LoA&R’s as
I treat LoI’s in that I will wait three months before acting on proposals.
Since I send out the LoA&R’s near the end of the month of my meeting,
and I ask for letters a week before my meeting, this allows between two and
two and a half months for discussion. In order for other members to be able
to reply to comments on matters in my LoA&R’s and to allow the chance
for the initial commentor to reply to the replies, I ask that you all try
to get your comments on my LoA&R’s out within a month of the receipt fo
the LoA&R.
Some of you try to poll your local heralds on matters before the College.
I agree that this is worthwhile, but they are not members of the College.
I am asking for your opinions specifically. If you can poll your subordinates
within the next month then by all means do so. If polling them would take
more than a month then I ask that you send me your comments within the month
and then later send me a summary of the feelings of your subordinates. Do
not delay your own comments waiting for theirs. If you feel than an issue
requires more than the usual time for discussion then say so in your initial
response. If I get several requests for more time then I will delay action.
I will try to always wait the three months before acting on a proposal, unless
I get an overwhelming response earlier that makes it clear what the consensus
will be.
The emblazons that most Principal Heralds have been including with their
LoI’s have proved to be very useful and have avoided a number of possible
confusions. I would like to ask therefore that every LoI include an attempt
at emblazons, even if it only stick figures. The forms used in the Middle
have a small shield shape for a miniature drawing of the submission, which
can then be photocopied and pasted together to form a sheet of emblazons.
I recommend this form. It is particularly important for a clear drawing to
be included for new charges, so the College can see what is proposed for adoption
into SCA usage. Please make sure that the blazons in the LoI match the emblazons
in the LoI. I also ask that the preparers of the forms to be sent to me make
sure that each picture sheet includes the SCA name and the blazon, and that
these also match what is on the LoI. If any changes are made to the picture,
say changing colors to avoid conflict, please note on the picture sheet that
these changes have been made, or I will assume the picture is correct and
reblazon the submission. Be sure to proofread the LoI to see if you haven’t
left out a tincture or made some other mistake that will mislead the commentors.
An hour’s time spent proofreading the LoI and forms can save a submittor
three months’ time resubmitting. Be sure that a submission’s status is correctly
stated. If it is a resubmission to the kingdom but never got out of kingdom
then it is a new submission to me. All submissions on a LoI should be alphabetized
together. A resubmissions should include the date of the LoA&R in which
it was previously listed and a short summary of the earlier problems and
what has been done to correct them. If there is documentation sent to me
then a summary should be included in the LoI for the benefit of the other
members of the College. If a name is in a foreign language and you are not
sure that it is correct then it would be very useful to include a note as
to whether the submittor wants the sound or the translation, so I’llknow
hot or whether to correct it if it turns out that the translation is not
correct.
I have not received a LoC for three months from Dolphin and for two
months from Lincoln, Okaen, Polaris, Triton and Blue Tyger. I hereby grant
an exemption from commenting to Corona while she works on the SCA Demographics
survey. She will need to follow our discussions but may not be able to comment.
Duke Finnvarr has resigned as Trillium Herald. The new Trillium Herald is
Torbin of Amberhall, (Robert Zimmerman, 291 Ontario St. #3, Toronto, Ontario
M5A 2V8). He will not be commenting, so put him only on the full roster.
The same is true of the new White Stag Herald: Lucie de Villebruyant Boniface
(Judy Alten). Her address is 155 Comanche Circle, Green River, Wyoming 89235.
Arval Benicouer is now Treble Rose Herald instead of Sycamore Herald, and
will continue to comment. Please add to the mailing list and roster the Silver
Quill Pursuivant: Lord Gustav Athanasius von Hausenstadt (Erik Richtsteig,
2607 South 700 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106, (801) 583-5409). Please remove
from the mailing list and roster Jean filz Roye, the Earle Marishale.of Logres.
After due consideration and consolation with those commenting on Logres
submissions and with Brigantia I have decided to terminate the concordat
with Logres concerning heraldic submissions. It has become increasingly clear
that Logres consists of no more than forty people in the Barony of Concordia
of the Snows in the East who all seem to be members of Jean's personal household.
In looking through the submissions from Logres I found that there are only
36 people who have registered names in Logres, but that Logres has 81 branch
names, 144 official titles and badges, 96 heraldic titles, and a dozen Orders
and Colleges. The last letter had 86 submissions, none of which was; for
a person. It has become clear that the people in Logres are registering large
number of official names and badges just for the fun of it, far more than
they have any use for. This is an abuse of our agreement and is not what
I had in mind when I agreed to protect their submissions if they would protect
ours. Since Logres shows no sign of growth and therefore is likely to remain
a splinter group I have decided that the concordat is no longer worthwhile
to the SCA and have terminated it. If any member of Logres wants their Logres
arms to be protected in the SCA they can register them in the SCA by submitting
them to the Brigantia Principal Herald and going through the normal submission
process.
Besides handling the paperwork of heraldic submission I have always felt
that my office should act as a coordinator for heraldic projects. It has certainly
become that. The Authentic European Names Book is progressing well, although
I am still waiting for a number of articles. It is my hope to see it in print
in the Spring. The Armorial and Ordinary is now being proofread by the Principal
Heralds and Clarion is preparing an update from May to December, which can
then also be proofread for errors. When all corrections have been received
and entered a final draft will be printed and checked locally for errors.
After correction of these last errors a camera ready copy will be printed
on a laser printer or type setter and sent to the printers. The Armorial and
Ordinary will be complete through the end of 1983. Dragon and Brigantia have
volunteered to handle the printing and distribution. They are currently looking
into the best bids and methods of printing, so the final price is not yet
set, although it should be under $20 for the set. A tentative schedule is
to have all corrections for the April A&O in by the first part of January
and to get the corrections for the update in by the end of January. The final
copy should then be ready sometime in February. I will announce more when
we know more. The Principal Heralds have the draft copies to work with, and
after waiting this long I feel it won't hurt to wait a little longer to ensure
that the A&O is as accurate as we can make it.
The update will also give us a chance to see what it is like to work with
one, allowing us to better decide how to deal with updates later. We will
probably provide cumulative updates every three months, copies of which can
be ordered by the Principal Heralds and others. My office will not be able
to provide free copies. In January the first draft of the SCA Order of Precedence
should be finished by Mistress Rebecca of Twywn, which can then be proofread
by the Principal Heralds for corrections and format suggestions. A compilation
of current rulings is in progress. This will consist of taking all precedents
and rulings and tossing out those that have been superseded later, and thus
will be different although complementary to Master Baldwin's excellent Precedents
volumes. Mistress Alison von Markheim, Corona Herald, is working on the SCA
Demographics Poll, which will include a number of questions from the College.
Anyone having questions they would like to see included should send them to
her, with a copy to me. The poll will cover all aspects of the SCA, not just
heraldry, and is under Mistress Alison's personal control. It is not a College
activity, although it came from a request from me for a volunteer to write
such,a poll. Current plans are to have the survey published in the Summer
T.I. coming out in June 1984, with results due in the fall and tabulated hopefully
before the end of 1984. (The results of the Board Survey are not available
yet, and so Mistress Alison is waiting for those results before writing her
survey.)
After the names book is out I will then revise my West Kingdom Heralds Handbook
for general use in the SCA. I would like to establish a list of heraldic materials
in the SCA, such as handbooks, articles, pamphlets, course notes, etc. along
with a brief description of what they contain, who has them, what they cost
to obtain copies of, and what address to write to for copies. We shouldn't
keep reinventing the Catherine's wheel every year. Perhaps this could be
done through the SCA Librarian or the Lion's Library or else somebody could
volunteer to be the College of Arms Librarian. Do you think such a listing
is worth the effort and if so which of the above is the best way to deal
with it? In the meantime I am willing to do what I can to compile the list,,
although I am short of free time. If anyone knows of any SCA heraldic materials
please send me the information listed above. Please send it in a separate
letter so I can put them all in a file. I am also interested in a list of
good books on heraldry and names that are in print along with ordering information,
such as what company carries them for how much at what address? I would like
to see more articles on names and heraldry appear in TI and the newsletters
and be available as pamphlets or handouts. If any of you have particular
subjects you would really like to see somebody write an article on please
mention them in your letters, and maybe you will inspire somebody to write
an article on one of them for the Heraldic Symposia or TI.
You should be seeing the announcement for next year's Fasachian Heraldic
Symposium in your newsletters, to be held on August 25-26, 1984 in Salt Lake
City, Utah. I urge all who can to consider attending and/or submitting a paper.
It-is really a rewarding experience to attend and the collected proceedings
of papers provide valuable references that will be kept in print. I would
like to invite bids for the 1985 Heraldic Symposium. While there is no set
rotation plan I would like to see the symposia move around to give everybody
a chance to attend. We can divide the country into three regions: Western
(West, An Tir, Caid), Central (Middle, Calontir, Atenveldt, Ansteorra), and
Eastern (East, Atlantia, Meridies). We've just had two symposia in the Eastern
region and the second and fifth (and the two Tir Ysgithr symposia) will have
been in Atenveldt in the Central region. For the sake of rotation I would
like to see bids from An Tir, the West, or Caid, although bids are certainly
acceptable from anybody and the best bid will win regardless. Voting on the
bids will be by all members of the College of Arms as listed on the current
roster at the time of the voting. I will provide all bidding committees with
copies of the roster so they can send out any additional flyers they wish
to. I would like to receive preliminary bids by March 1, 1984 and firm bids
by May 1, 1984. 1 will send out the ballots in May, along with a questionnaire
containing any questions then under discussion or proposed for inclusion in
the questionnaire (such as alterations to our name rules). Results will be
due August 1, 1984 and the winning bid and results of the question- naire
will be announced at the Symposium.
In order that the Symposium not interfere with the Herald's Picnic at Pennsic
I would suggest that bids be for weekends outside of August, unless the bid
is for a Symposium to be held in place of the Picnic in the Middle. I encourage
each kingdom to consider having kingdom or principality or regional symposia
or Herald's College sessions, so long as they do not conflict with the national
symposium. The College has arrived at a good set of rules, and now needs to
concentrate on education of heralds and the membership for the next several
years. These sessions are a good method of education.
I would like to explain two matters that people seem to be confused about.
The first matter is the restriction of the use of medical symbols in submissions
and of medical professions in names. These are based upon the practical fact
that in the case of a medical emergency at an SCA event it is important for
the person immediately on the scene to get word of the problem to a medically
trained person (usually a chirurgeon) as fast as possible. While we do not
require that they do so, those chirurgeons and other medically trained people
that adopt a medical symbol into their device or use a medical occupational
byname in their name (such as the caduceus in a device or a name like the
recent Craig Goodleech Duggin) do aid people in remembering that they are
medically trained. What the College does not want to see is a non-medically
trained person being contacted first in the mistaken impression that the person
is medically trained, thereby costing precious time in a medical emergency.
We therefore restrict the use of medical symbols and medical occupational
bynames to those who are medically trained (nurse, doctor, paramedic, etc.).
In the case of the recent submission with midwife in the name, I asked whether
the person was medically trained because in period the two medical professions
one normally thinks of, doctors and barbers, were generally only found in
cities and major estates. The peasantry had to make do with midwives, who
were all-around medics besides the deliverers of babies. Even today there
are significant medical training requirements for a person to pass before
he or she can become a licensed midwife. This restriction applies only to
medical symbols and professions, for the above stated practical reason. Other
occupational names may be used by anyone.
The other matter is that of religion in the SCA. Contrary to popular opinion
in some areas, religion is not banned in the SCA. (In fact, we would be denying
the major aspect of the culture we are trying to recreate if we tried to ban
religion from the SCA entirely.) What the SCA-has, as expressed in Corpora,
is a doctrine of separation of church and state, full freedom of religion,
and a prohibition of forcing others to participate in or witness religious
services and a ban on the use of artifices of magical, religious, or psychic
nature so as to achieve thereby an advantage on the field. I refer you to
Corpora, Governing and Policy Decision #27, Policy on Magic and Religion.
It basically says that the SCA shall neither establish nor prohibit any system
of magic or religion among its members. People should not perform ceremonies
or make other use of magic or religion in such a way as to imply that the
ceremony is officially authorized or sponsored by the SCA, or to force participants,
by direct or indirect pressure, to join the ceremony or to witness unwillingly,
or to cause religious, magical or psychic effects upon those who do not wish
to endure them. Except as stated above nobody in the SCA may discriminate
against any member of the SCA on magical, religious, or psychic grounds. Recognition
of official or unofficial religious, magical, or psychic organizations by
the College by means of registration of their name and badge does not constitute
acknowledgement of the religious, magical, or psychic claims of those organizations.
What this means is that the College does not prohibit the registration of
religious group names and badges or the use of religious symbolism in names
or devices or badges. We do require that these not be offensive to others.
Excessive use of religious symbolism in devices and badges can be offensive
to those of other religions. Use of religious symbolism in a joking or derogatory
manner can be offensive to those of that religion. In the case of names we
prefer to avoid the use of religious institution designations (temple, church,
abbey, grove., circle, monastery, etc.) in a joking manner (Abbey of Misrule,
for example) as this can be offensive to those of the religion that uses such
institutional designations. Within these bounds I in fact encourage the serious
use of religious symbolism by members of those religions, as this is a very
period practice. I am willing to allow a greater use of religious symbolism
by a group specifically designated as a serious religious group, such as
an Abbey. I try very hard to maintain an impartial frame of mind when judging
cases of use of religious symbolism or designations. Being Christian myself
I certainly am not anti-Christian, and I try to not be anti-pagan as well.
If you know of areas where people believe that religion is outlawed please
inform them of the correct legal situation. Out here in the West there have
often been occasions where a group got together Sunday morning away from
the main area and celebrated mass. Similarly there have been pagan circles
and even a minyan was formed once. The key here was that they were held off
to one side where people were not forced to watch. Similarly adoption in one’s
name or device of a sincere allusion to one’s religion is quite acceptable,
so long as it is not overdone or done as a joke. Religion is not a joking
matter.
There have been some proposals put forth, which I will repeat here for
your comments. It has been suggested that the addition of a single mark of
cadency (as opposed to a mark of difference) should not be sufficient difference
between mundane arms and an SCA badge, for which the current requirement is
one major point of difference. This is because the addition of the mark of
cadency essentially creates an exact conflict with the arms of the appropriate
child or grandchild of the holder of the basic arms. England and Scotland
both have a standard set of cadency marks added in specific ways. I do not
know if the countries in Europe had such systems. Do you think we should adopt
this qualifier on the usual requirement of a single major point of difference
between SCA badges and mundane arms? If we do I will try to compile a list
of all such charges.
Vesper has made two proposals. The first is a change in the rule for
claiming complete difference of charge. As it stands now this rule states
that if all charges are sufficiently different then the two submissions are
not in conflict, regardless of actual points of difference, so long as the
arrangements of the charges is not do distinctive as to make the arrangement
one of the major visual aspects. Thus a lion is different from a lozenge and
two lions and a lozenge is different from two roundels and a cross. Five crosses
in cross is not completely different from five roundels in cross because
here the arrangement is sufficiently distinctive that only a single major
point of difference of type of charge can be granted. Argent, a cross within
a bordure gules differs from Argent, a lozenge within a bordure gules by
one major point of difference of type of charge. The appearance of the bordure
in both arms prevents the application of complete difference of charge because
the bordure is the same in both arms.
Vesper proposes that when a device or badge contains a plain uncharged
bordure or chief only the charges below the chief or within the bordure would
be considered with respect to the complete difference of change rule (they
would count for all other rules), Thus with the proposed change in effect
the two arms with bordure mentioned above would no longer conflict, because
a cross is completely different from a lozenge. This change would make it
easier to register badges and devices with plain bordure and chiefs and the
cost of added possibility of confusing such devices as given above as examples.
Do you think this proposal should be adopted?
Vesper’s second proposal is a change in the way we count charges on
certain ordinaries. Under present rules charges charged onto other charges
count as tertiary charges and are therefore demoted one step with regards
to points of difference. Primary and secondary charges count fully with regards
to difference. Thus adding a cross in the center (a primary charge) or to
one side of the primary cjarge (a secondary charge) counts as one full point
of difference. Adding the cross on top of the primary charge (i.e., changing
a lion with the cross) counts as a minor point of difference. Vesper proposes
that in the case of plain undivided fields with a single plain fess, pale,
bend or bend sinister and no secondary charges that addition of one or more
charges to the ordinary count fully.
Vesper gives the example of Sable, on a fess Or a lion passant gules versus
Azure, on a fess Or a mullet gules. Under current rules this counts as a major
(color of field) point and a minor (difference of type of tertiary charge)
point. Under Vesper’s proposed change there would be two major points of
difference, sufficient difference between two SCA devices. Do you feel that
the above devices are too similar for two SCA devices or do you agree in
in these special cases the difference is sufficient? Adoption of this rule
would make it easier to have combinations of simple field plus ordinary. The
addition of two different types of charges onto the ordinary would thus provide
the major and minor point requirment from the mundane arms consisting of
the uncharged ordinary. It would become possible to register badges consisting
of a simple field plus one of these simple ordinaries charged with a single
charge, as this would provide the required one major point. The cost would
be an increased appearance of family relationship, particularly in the case
of a badge used as the device for an alternate persona, and an increased chance
of confusion between SCA submissions. What do you think of this proposal?
I am still waiting for your comments on what we should do about the proposed
change to Corpora on the authenticity requirements for SCA personal names.
Do we want to loosen our rules, and if so how much in what areas? Are there
classes of names that are technically inconsistent with period usage that
are tolerable enough that they could be allowed as discouraged classes? (We
would continue to encourage properly authentic names. The names book should
help in this regard.) Should we allow looser requirements for made-up names
than we require for attempts at authentic names in specific languages? Should
we continue to correct errors in names or should some types of errors be allowed,
with the submittor informed of the error and given suggestions on voluntary
corrections? If the latter, then which types of errors should we correct
and which should we merely advise on? Should we allow individual kingdoms
to have varying degrees of authenticity required, as determined by the Principal
Herald in accordance with the varying degree of authenticity desired by the
membership in different kingdoms, with the standards at my level set equal
to the loosest degree allowed? (I personally think we should continue to
have uniform rules.) These are some questions to be thinking about. I personally
think out rules are soundly based and only need some adjustment to be consistent,
but if the membership really feels we are too strict and the Board changes
our legal basis in Corpora and orders us to loosen up then we will have to
loosen up.
At the November Board meeting the Board considered the draft proposal for
the announcement for the newsletters on Royal Peers, the Names question, and
the various policies on titles and ranks. They felt that the latter were not
the sort of thing to go into Corpora and therefore did not need to be sent
to the membership, although they had no objections to any of the policies,
and so they decided that the College could distribute the list of policies
as it wishes. The Board felt the proposals for Royal Peers and Names were
too lengthy for printing in the newsletters and so they decided to send them
out in the Spring issue of TI, which comes out on March 1, 1984 and has a
deadline of January 1, 1984. Duke Siegfried was delegated the task of preparing
the final wording for that announcement. If it does go out in TI then it could
not be considered until the July Board meeting. Comments to the Board on
those proposed changes to Corpora should be sent to the Corporate Secretary,
although I would appreciate copies.
I pointed out to the Board that there are both arms of the SCA and of the
Board of Directors in the Armorial, and that the arms of a corporation legally
are the arms of the Board of Directors of that corporation, and that only
the Board can display it unless the Board authorizes others. The Board therefore
chose to release the arms of the Board (Vert, a laurel wreath or) and to give
permission for all members of the SCA to display the arms of the SCA (Or,
a laurel wreath vert) at official SCA events.
The Steward reminded the Board that the warrants of all Corporate Officers
would expire in the following twelve months (mine expires on June 30, 1984)
and that there were two Board openings. (Larry Mannion’s. term had expired
and Mike Woodford had been removed from the Board at a special election meeting
held by conference call on October 13. The reasons appear to deal with excessive
partiality and political involvement on Mike Woodford's part.) Carol's term
would also expire in that period, leaving a total of three Board positions
to be filled. She proposed that she send out a single announcement to the
newsletters covering the situation, which was agreed on. The Board's policy
is that every time a warrant expires the position is put up for formal review
and competing bids
from other candidates for the Corporate Office involved are considered.
This does not mean that the Corporate Officer cannot ask to be rewarranted
but it also does not mean that the Corporate Officer will automatically be
rewarranted. The policy guards against reappointing Corporate Officers who
have burned out without the embarrassment of a special review.
There appears to be a rumor in the East that the Board has already decided
not to rewarrant me and the only question was who my successor would be. I
can say, having talked to the Chairman, Duchess Carol ' that there is no truth
to this rumor. No decision has been made and to our knowledge the Board has
no specific complaints against my performance as Laurel, other than the previously
expressed feeling that the name rules are too strict. The Board will review
my position at the April meeting, just as it will be reviewing the other
Corporate Offices during the year. Other candidates will also be considered.
Anyone desiring to volunteer to replace me or wishing to nominate somebody
else to do so should sent a letter of nomination, listing all relevant qualifications,
to the Corporate Secretary.- with copies to me and to the College Ombudsman,
Duke Siegfried. The deadline for the January 29, 1984 meeting is January
17, 1984, while the deadline for the April 15, 1984 meeting is April 3, 1984.
Letters must be received by the Corporate Secretary by those dates to be
considered at those meetings. Anyone wishing to write in expressing their
support for my rewarranting or for the choice of another candidate is urged
to do so before those deadlines. After the January meeting I will list all
other candidates. So far the only one is Master Baldwin of Erebor, former
Aten Principal Herald and Green Staff Herald.
I fully intend to request to be rewarranted for another term, as I feel
that I have not begun to burn out (my perfect record on processing submissions
promptly supports this) and that there is still much that I can accomplish.
As I listed before, there are many projects that I am currently coordinating
and several more, such as the handbook, that I would like to get to. I have
increased the size of the College of Arms tenfold and have, I hope, instilled
a feeling of collegiality among the members, as well as setting up a system
of dialogue and listening to the results, keeping an open mind on all matters.
While I freely admit that I have made mistakes in the past, particularly that
of inconsistency during the difficult time of defining names rules, I feel
that I have learned by my mistakes and that the accomplishments of my tenure
clearly outweigh the mistakes. I have learned a great deal about naming practices
in Europe through editing the names book and managing the discussion on names,
as well as delving deeply into period heraldic practice and learning to become
an effective chief administrator and coordinator. I find that my love of
heraldry and desire to serve the College and the Society has not dimmed,
and therefore I will ask to be rewarranted. If you think I should be rewarranted
I ask you to write to the Board and tell them so. Please do so out of normal
commenting channels, as I do not wish to politicise the College. This is
the only time I shall make this appeal, as I find it distasteful to have
to blow my own trumpet. (I would rather stand for office than run for it.)
Pray believe, my Lords and Ladies, that I remain
Your servant,
Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel
Laurel King of Arms
Created 122701T14:30:10