Taigh Moran Chat
RR 2, Northside Road
Wading River, NY 11792
8 August, 1988

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 submissions scheduled for consideration in July were considered on 16 July and 24 July. The letters considered at those two sessions included An Tir (3/29), Atenveldt (4/1), Middle (4/3), East (4/7), Caid (4/10), Ansteorra (4/12), Calontir (4/12), West (4/13), Meridies (4/23), An Tir (4/24), Outlands (4/25) and Middle (4/29) as well as the Laurel Letter of Intent.

If enough letters of comment on arrive in good time, the August meeting will be held on 13 August. If not, the "August" meeting will be held on Labor Day weekend. Letters to be discussed at that time include Atenveldt (5/1), Caid (5/1), East (5/13), Meridies (5/15), West (5/16), Ansteorra (5/18), Middle (5/22), Atlantia (5/25), East (5/25), Calontir (5/30), Trimaris (5/30) and Calontir (5/31).

The September meeting is scheduled for 18 September and will consider Atenveldt (6/1), Calontir (6/1), Caid (6/12), West (6/13), Ansteorra (6/14), Middle (6/14), An Tir (6/29), Meridies (6/29) and Outlands (6/29). At this point the tentative dates for the last three Laurel meetings of 1988 remain October 16, November 20 and December 18.

In a recent comment on the April Laurel letter, Crescent rather strongly took exception to the registration of the name of Erich Wilhelm von Falkenheim as conflicting under the current Laurel rulings with the household name of Falkenheim registered to Manfried von Falkenmond, a resident of Caid. Crescent demanded an apology to Manfried von Falkenmond, going so far as to say that "Either she [Laurel] is playing favorites in who is protected and who is not, or else she cannot recall her own policy decisions. Either alternative is unacceptable."

It must be stated, equally strongly, that Laurel tries very hard not to play favourites (as Crescent admits in his calmer moments). It has been a central tenet of this "administration" that who a person is immaterial: it is the submission's content and documentation that is considered. (Indeed, it has been more commonly complained that adequate consideration has not been given to the submissions of royalty and "old time peers" who may claim privilege based on their position in their kingdoms.)

Nor is Laurel or her staff unaware of the current status of the rulings on household names (with all the commentary on the issue, how could they be?). We have tried to maintain consistency and equity, even when the clamour on both sides has been the greatest.

What we have not been able to do, however, is block out human error. Even were the Laurel Office the Papacy of the Society as it is sometimes terms, we would have doubts concerning claiming infallibility. As it is, we are all too conscious of the mistakes that can be made, particularly when the bulk of submissions is great and a substantial proportion of the comments arrive in the days immediately prior to a scheduled meeting.

In this case, we goofed. We missed the comment from Crescent which called the conflict on the household name. Since Society heraldry has had a long-standing policy of protecting registration, even when it has been demonstrated to have made in error, we can do nothing substantial to rectify this situation.

We do apologize to Manfried von Falkenmond and his household. We can do no more.

The discussion of the proper registration and protection of household names has been hot and heavy and, in recent months, has not always been in the best interests of the submittor.

Many of your comments have been well-taken and we admit the force of the reductiones ad absurdam with which Crescent and some others have beaten the current policy, which was from its inception a compromise between "conflicting rights". As has been noted previously, this issue will be put to the populace in the Winter issue of Tournaments Illuminated and a conclusion, one way or another, reached before next summer.

In the meantime, I would ask all commentors to take a more positive approach to the issue. I know that you can find extreme examples of household names which take undue space. Laurel is herself somewhat of an expert in the technique of reducing a line of argument to the absurd by carrying it to the logical extreme and there are many items in the Armorial and Ordinary which lend itself to this game. Some of these undoubtedly never should have been registered; others reflect an ignorance in which we can no longer shelter.

Your point has been made. Whether we agree or not, we have all seen it. Now, in the interests of the submittors who trust to our honour and courtesy, please try to focus for a moment more on practise and less on principle. If you are convinced that a gentle with a registered household name would not object to the use of that household name as a surname by someone outside his or her household, why not ask that individual to grant permission to conflict? Some members of the College have already taken this approach. It would be helpful if all could. At this point, doing anything else neither assists the College nor proves the error of Laurel's rulings: all it achieves is injury to the submittor whom we should be serving.

Your servant,

[Alisoun]