December 26, 1983 XVIII

To: All Members of the College of Arms

From: Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms


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