7 April 1985, A.S. XIX

Unto the members of the College of Arms,

from Baldwin of Erebor, Laurel King of Arms.

My lords and ladies,

Enclosed herewith are the acceptances and returns from the Laurel meeting of March 10. Submissions were processed at this meeting for Atenveldt (11/26), East (11/27), Caid (12/6), Calontir (12/8), Middle (12/10), Atenveldt (12/10), West (12/17), Meridies (12/17), East (12/25), East (12/26), and Laurel (1/1). There were 240 items approved, 47 returned, and 6 pending, for an 82% approval rate.

Schedule

The letters to be processed at the April 14 meeting are Laurel (1/28), Meridies (12/18), Atlantia (12/31), Calontir (1/7), West (1/10), East (1/14), Caid (1/19), and Atenveldt (1/22). The East's letter of correction of 3/13 will also be reviewed for the April LoAR.

The May meeting is scheduled for the 12th. The letters to be processed at this meeting are Middle (1/25), Ansteorra (1/28), Atenveldt (2/12), West (2/13), and East (2/24). Letters of comment for this meeting should arrive no later than May 4th.

The June meeting has been scheduled for the 9th. The letters to be processed at this meeting are Laurel (3/31), Middle (2/24), Ansteorra (3/3), Caid (3/8), West (3/10), Atenveldt (3/13), and Middle (3/17). Letters of comment for this meeting should arrive no later than June 1st.

Mailing list

Black Lion has a new address: Master Wilhelm von Westfalen (Dave Biller), 2120 Highland Avenue #201, Everett, WA 98201. His telephone number remains the same. Please add Lord Andreas of the Green Village, Lanner Herald, to the list of corresponding members of the College of Arms. His address is: John Kreipe, 4145 Locust #3­N, Kansas City, MO 64110. Also please add Lord Vergil William de Comyn (Brendt Hess), 8916 S.W. 36th Avenue, Portland, OR 97219.

Correction

Due to a human error in our data­entry system (translation: I pressed the wrong button on the mouse), the device of Gelasia de Montfaucon appeared under both Approvals and Returns in the February LoAR. The latter entry (under Returns) was the correct one.

Feedback

In answer to a couple of queries/suggestions: I use different dates for the Letter of Acceptances and Returns and the cover letter so each can be identified uniquely by its date. This makes it possible to refer to something by date of letter and page number. A few months back, I began dating the LoAR as of the Laurel meeting, so the date noted in the files would be the same as the one on the letter.

In response to a question from Vesper, the chess king which was approved in November was not a Staunton piece ­ it was from the set labelled "Chessmen from Publicius, Ars oratoria, 1482" on page 31 of Donald Liddell's Chessmen. The pawn I drew in the February letter was from the same set, which is about as consistent as you can get. (There's actually more to it than that. The shape I selected is common to a number of period chess sets, and its shape seems to be confined to the pawns. I felt these would make the piece more recognizable and less likely to be confused with another piece.)

Vesper also asked why, in the February letter, I passed the arms of the SHIRE OF DELVINGRIM with a request that the emblazon be corrected, yet returned the badge of GRACA D'ALATAIA for what Vesper perceives to be a similarly "poor or unclear emblazon." Graca's chess piece was modern, not medieval; it seemed likely that she was not aware there was a difference. I felt it was important that this distinction be made, particularly since this badge would become the defining instance of a chess pawn in SCA heraldry. I therefore stressed it by requiring a new emblazon. The problem with the arms of Delvingrim was more style than definition. I felt it was important enough to be worth mentioning, but not to insist. The difference in the two calls was the degree of the perceived problem.

Rules for Submissions

Brigantia has questioned the manner in which the College of Arms applies the Rule of Tincture to charges overall:

The portion of Rules IX.5 which specifies that the field defines what the tincture of the charge "overall" should be has a somewhat controversial history and I think is something of a distortion of the original intent. I have been told that this particular ruling was made on the basis of a verbal statement as to the current practice of the English College. If so, this is unfortunate, as it certainly does not follow period practice and defeats in many cases the basic principle stated in the same paragraph: "The basic requirement in all cases is that there be sufficient contrast for clear visibility." A random leafing through Papworth produces literally dozens of examples of analogous situations, e.g. Fitz­Osborn "Gules, a bend argent surmounted by a fess vert," Hearle "Azure, a pale surmounted by a maunche gules," Dixton "Sable, a pile argent surmounted by a chevron gules," etc.

Any comments?

For additional questions concerning the Rules for Submissions, see the submissions for Adrian Buchanon, Dragonship Haven, and Edward FitzRanulf under PENDING.

Wreaths vs. Chaplets

Our investigation into the differences (if any) between wreaths and chaplets in mundane and SCA armory produced up the following results:

Chaplet (mundane usage):

1) (also garland) A circular wreath of leaves with four flowers in cross.

2) A garland of oak, laurel, or other leaves or flowers.

3) A broad annulet charged with four charges in cross.

4) "A chaplet of laurel or roses, unless completely conjoined and figuring as a charge upon the shield, will be far more likely to be termed a wreath or garland of laurel or roses than a chaplet."

5) A garland or entwined wreath of leaves and flowers, or of flowers alone.

Wreath (mundane usage):

1) A torse.

2) A charge in the shape of a ring.

3) A chaplet.

4) A chaplet, particularly of laurel or roses, when not completely conjoined.

Wreath (Society usage):

1) Two branches of a plant, stems crossed at the base, arranged in a penannular figure.

2) Flowers and leaves arranged as a laurel wreath.

3) An annulet of leaves with four flowers in cross.

4) An annulet of flowers.

Chaplet (Society usage):

1) An annulet of leaves with four flowers in cross.

2) A torse of flowers.

A chaplet is a closed (annular) figure. The standard heraldic chaplet is represented as a ring of foliage with four flowers in cross. This particular figure should be called a chaplet, not a wreath.

A wreath may be either closed (annular) or open (penannular). If it is open, it should be called a wreath, not a chaplet. Laurel wreaths are depicted as open, sometimes (but not always) with the stems crossed at the bottom. A wreath may or not have flowers, but it should have foliage.

On the suggested reblazon for the arms of the Queen of the East: what is shown in the files is a number of flower blossoms in annulo, which is neither wreath nor chaplet by the above summary, although it does seem to fall under sense #5 of the mundane usage of chaplet. The illustration on page 4 of the February Pikestaff, however, shows a closed ring of foliage (with stems crossed at the base) charged at intervals with flower blossoms, which I would term a wreath. My inclination is to leave the blazon unchanged.

The foregoing, by the way, has bearing only on the representation of the charges, and is offered out of pity to the poor, beleagured artist. With this much leeway in both definition and usage, the heraldic difference is negligible.

My thanks to Mistress Eowyn Amberdrake, who did both the legwork and the brainwork on the foregoing.

Notes and Queries

Virgule has said that embattled grady appears to be out of period. Can anyone either substantiate or refute this claim; and if it does prove to be out of period, can anyone offer an argument that we should continue to accept it as "compatible" with medieval heraldry?

Et cetera

Solar herald writes to say that there are still copies of the proceedings of the first two Heraldic Symposia, held in the Barony of Tir Ysgithr. "Both [volumes] have lots of basic heraldry information, an absolutely antediluvian Armorial for the SCA, and are such a deal for only $10.00 (the set; postage paid)." The address to write is Clea de Hunedoara, c/o Sue Thing, 2025 West Spring Street, Tucson, AZ 85745.

There will be an additional mailing to the College, in about two weeks, of a formal Request for Proposal for the maintenance and production of the SCA Armorial and Ordinary. If you know of anyone who might be interested in this project, please pass the information along.

Please believe me to be,

Your servant,

Baldwin of Erebor

Laurel King of Arms

enclosures