Taigh Moran Chat

RR 2, Northside Road

Wading River, NY 11792

25 November 1987

Unto the members of the College of Arms and any others who may read this missive, greetings from Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, Laurel Queen of Arms!

The enclosed letter includes all submissions processed at the meeting of 31 October. These submissions included those from the letters from Ansteorra (6/26), Atenveldt (7/1), Caid (7/12), West (7/15), Calontir (7/26) and the letter from Trimaris dated in May, but mailed in July as well as those items pended from the July Laurel meeting. Of the 210 actions in this letter 179 are positive, 28 are negative and 3 are pending for an overall acceptance rate of approximately 85%.

In response to pressing demands from members of the Laurel staff who wanted an ironclad excuse for escaping turkey leftovers and the bosom of the family, the November meeting had been moved to 28 November. At that time we will consider the letters from An Tir (7/28), Atenveldt (8/1), Meridies (8/1), West (8/5) and Caid (8/9).

The December meeting is set for 19 December and will consider East (8/31), Atenveldt (9/1), Atlantia (9/13), Caid (9/13), Outlands (9/16), West (9/16), Atlantia (9/28) and Calontir (9/28).

The January meeting is now more firmly scheduled for 24 January. At that time we will consider Atenveldt (10/1), Caid (10/4), West (10/21), Ansteorra (10/23) and Outlands (10/24).

We hope to be able to take the Laurel Office "on the road" to Estrella War again this year (the decision is at the moment in the hands of our local tax assessors). If this possible, the letter from Caid (11/8) will be considered at the War. All other letters dated in November will be considered at the primary meeting for February which will be held on 21 February.

The Osprey Herald of Atlantia, Charles of the Red Oakes, has been compelled by mundane circumstances to resign. Please remove him from your rosters.

I am extremely happy to announce that four excellently presented bids reached the Laurel Office by the 15 November deadline. To the best of my knowledge, we have never in the past had more than two serious bids in a given year and all too often had only one unsolicited bid (or none!). That there should be such widespread interest in hosting a Known World Symposium I take as an extremely heartening indication of the healthy interest in heraldry throughout the Society.

The four bids (in the order in which they were received) may be summarized as follows:

Ansteorra Host Group: Barony of the Steppes/Shire of Elfsea.

Mundane location: Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

Date: 30 April - 1 May

Autocrat: Da'ud ibn Auda, (Obelisk Herald)

Trimaris Host Group: Shire of Starhaven.

Mundane location: Melbourne, Florida

Date: 1 July - 4 July

Autocrats: Erik Loren Elcara (Triskele Herald) and Martha Elcara

Calontir Host Group: Barony of the Forgotten Sea/Shire of Dun Ard.

Mundane location: Leavenworth, Kansas

Date: 17 June - 19 June

Autocrat: Charles Steward O'Connor (Gold Falcon Herald)

West (Lochac) Host Group: College of St. Bartholomew

Mundane location: Melbourne, Australia

Date: 1 July - 4 July

Autocrats: Eleanore Liddlehales and Elenor of the Grieving Heart

A decision will be made on 15 December. Input from members of the College of Arms and any others who receive this letter is welcome. If you have an opinion on the desirability of one bid or another (or have a problem with a particular date or location), please let me know by letter or telephone as soon as possible.

Some time ago I requested volunteers who were willing to compile precedents for my tenure. Several people kindly volunteered. After some consideration I have decided that the candidate best qualified for the job is Da'ud ibn Auda, Obelisk Herald of Ansteorra. Da'ud not only offers impressive technical skills and exposure to commentary in the College for a considerable period of time, but will be convincingly impartial in his complication having been at no time a member of the immediate Laurel staff (and therefore being without any vested interest in the intelligence of coherence of the precedents presented!).

In the July letter of intent, it was proposed to the College that the ruling that complete difference of charge is in and of itself enough to difference one device from another should be extended to cover any number of charges arranged in a standard arrangement, an extension which would include devices which consisted solely of a field semy of identical charges.

Although this proposal was made in conjunction with the submitted device of Vasili iz Naitemneshoi Dolina, it has a long history. Although the concept that 'complete difference of charge is always sufficient' is a very old on in the College, its application has varied over the years. When Laurel was first active as a herald, the principle was virtually unconditioned. In the course of time, the idea that complete difference of charge could not exist if the charges in question were diminished in size began to hold sway. By the end of Master Wilhelm's tenure, the rules specifically limited the application of 'complete difference of charge' to cases where the device consisted only of one, two or three identical charges in a standard arrangement or of one or two charges in a standard arrangement coupled with an uncharged plain bordure or chief.

During Master Baldwin's tenure. The movement of opinion in the College began to shift, apparently feeling that the allowance had been unduly restricted. Rulings by Master Baldwin once again extended the concept so that up four identical charges could claim the allowance and it could also apply when one or two charges were coupled with an identical uncharged chief or bordure, even though the latter had a complex line of division.

In evaluating the arguments for and against an extension of the allowance, we considered not only a desire for simplicity and susceptibility to logical explanation of our criteria but also the practice of period and modern heraldry in determining difference.

So far as the former is concerned, there is no doubt that the numeric limitations applied in the past few years appear arbitrary and are in most cased difficult to justify on an abstract basis. For instance, we found ourselves totally unable to come up with a coherent explanation why two charges within a bordure could claim complete difference of charge while three charges, a more common and desirable arrangement in period heraldry, could not. To say that in general charges are smaller when more numerous and are therefore less identifiable would serve as a guiding rule for a case by case application of the principle of 'visual conflict'. However, it seemed inequitable to demand inexorable quantifications where such much inevitably be based on subjective criteria; complete difference of charge might well exist between a mullet and a billet, whatever the number of charges involved, whilst between and anvil and a mullet, the clear visual difference might exist when there are three charges, but be lost if there are twelve.

When we examined the practice of mundane heralds, in period and in our own day, there was no question that cadency was not even considered when there was complete difference of charge, no matter how many charges existed. "Argent, ten lions gules" would not be considered in any way related to "Argent, ten swords gules" (although it could be considered cadet argent of "Argent, ten lions azure"). If, however, one common charge exists, then a possibility of cadency does exist. Indeed, where there is an ordinary, changing the charges strewn on a field semy or changing secondary charges on a plain field or modifying the primary charge when all other charges remind the same (e.g. changing "Argent, a fess between three acorns gules" to "Argent, a chevron between three acorns gules") are all accepted modes of cadency.

After due consideration, we feel that the allowance for 'complete difference of charge' should be extended to cover any number of charges in a standard arrangement. Note that this does not deny to the College the right to call 'visual conflict' if such exists because of exceptionally unusual combinations of tincture or a serious loss of identifiability of charges due to diminution of size. The application of this allowance has always been to some extent a judgment call on Laurel's part. This ruling simply grants the Laurel Office more freedom to follow mundane practice and grant leniency when it seems appropriate.

PRECEDENT

A few months ago the Laurel Office appealed desperately to the commenting membership of the College of Arms for an improvement in the frequency and depth of commentary both on letters of intent and on issues confronting the College.

Whether because of that plea, because of the actions of the Board of Directors this summer or because of a diminution of mundane pressures upon the membership of the College, there had been an upsurge of commentary. The increases flow of commentary has made Laurel meetings more pleasant and more productive and has increased the confidence of the Laurel staff that decisions are being made based on the best research available, thus being more equitable for the submittor and the Society as a whole. Thank you!

Your servant,

Alisoun