Taigh Moran Chat
RR 2, Northside Road
Wading River, NY 11792
20 May, 1989

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 March meeting was held on Saturday, March 26 to deal with An Tir letter of August, 1988, Atenveldt (12/1), Middle (12/9), Caid (12/11), Meridies (12/14), Atlantia (12/15), Ansteorra (12/20), West (12/20), Calontir (12/23), Outlands (12/24) and Middle (12/30).

The April meeting of Sunday, April 30, considered the letters from the East (12/30), East (1/1), Calontir (1/10), Caid (1/15), Ansteorra (1/20), Trimaris (1/20), Meridies (1/23), Outlands (1/23) and West (1/24).

The May meeting will be held on Sunday, May 21 and will deal with the letters from An Tir (11/28), Calontir (2/1), Caid (2/12), Atenveldt (2/13), West (2/13), Calontir (2/14), Ansteorra (2/16), Outlands (2/24), East (2/25), Meridies (2/26), Atlantia (2/28) and East (2/28).

The June meeting is currently scheduled for Sunday, June 18. It will consider. Letters to be considered at that meeting include Calontir (3/1), Caid (3/5), West (3/14/), Ansteorra (3/16), East (3/20), Trimaris (3/20), Meridies (3/21), East (3/23) and Calontir (3/31). As this meeting will be held in New York, late breaking comments (i.e., those which would arrive after 8 June) should be directed to Laurel's New York address as shown above rather than the new South Carolina address given in the cover letter of February, 1989.

The July meeting is tentatively scheduled for Sunday, 23 July, and should be the first meeting to be held in Atlantian territory. The letters presently scheduled for consideration at that meeting include Middle (4/3), Atlantia (4/15), Ansteorra (4/21), Caid (4/23), Meridies (4/27), East (4/28), Atenveldt (4/30) and Calontir (4/30).

ROSTER CHANGES

Laurel has not received much response to her plea for nominations for additional commentors, general or specialized, to be added to the mailing list as Laurel staff commentors. Indeed, only one name has been mentioned to her so far, although that individual has been nominated by several senior members of the College. If you have other nominations, please send them on, as we would like to ease the commenting burden on the slender (and ever decreasing) group of faithful commentors. In the meantime, please add Marta as tu Mika-Mysliwy (Linda Miku) to your mailing lists as a staff commentor. Her address is 2527 E. Third Street, Tucson, AZ 85716 (602-881-9492).

Aten asks that you also add to your mailing lists as a commentor the Mons Tonitrus Pursuivant, Alwyn Stewart (Alvin Bedgood), 4978 Calle Cumbre, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635.

RULES REVISION REMINDER

Remember that the deadline for commentary on this draft is June 15. (Comments should be sent to the South Carolina address noted in the last letter. Arrangements have been made for the comments to be picked up on June 15, logged and sorted so that Laurel can hit the ground running when she arrives back from New York.)

Remember that comments should be in separate letters of rules commentary. Remember that commenting members of the College should send their comments to all those on the mailing list (preferably at the same time the comments are sent to Laurel, in no case later than 1 July).

Some commentary has already come in, much of it useful. However, one or two letters have mounted hobbyhorses (or beaten dead horses). Your comments will be much more useful to Laurel and her staff if they refrain from invective (personalized or generalized) or lengthy and emotional expressions of outrage that Laurel (or the College) would even dare to consider doing X. Reasoned argument is likely to carry much more weight than impassioned outburst or prejudicial statements directed at one or more segments of the Society population.

By tradition the College of Arms has been a community of gentlemen, if not always of scholars, and Laurel is not inclined to allow the discussion of the rules to degenerate into a session of name calling or emotional flailing at those with opposing views. Please try to remember that the rules for submission have no innate moral content: those with opposing views cannot be guilty of mortal sin. God (or Buddha or Allah or the Goddess) is not on any one side of the argument and no individual or groups can claim a moral imperative on the issues involved. On a number of issues involved with the rules discussion, (for example, the existence of individuals with non-European persona, the degree to which the Society should move towards being more "reenactment" rather than "recreation" oriented, etc.) feelings can run high, but there are a wide variety of valid points of view. The fact that you adhere to one side or another (even to one extreme or another) does not mean those who are on the other side are evil. If you try to recall this when you are writing, the discussion will be more productive and less painful for all.

Yes, this is a bit of "jawboning"! One would have hoped that such admonitions would not be necessary, but, as stated above, one or two commentary letters have already come in which the tone reflected something less than the scholarly interchange of viewpoints that one would have expected from the individuals involved. Frankly, Laurel will not stand for rounds of authenticist bashing or fantasist bashing or "Jap bashing" or... Well, you get the drift. By rants and emotional outbursts, you will not serve to convince either Laurel or the "opposition" of your viewpoint. You will only serve to make productive discussion difficult or impossible as attention is diverted to the manner of your commentary, rather than its content. (This holds true for general commentary in the College as well. I at all possible, write your commentary and then lay it aside for a few days to "brew". Then read it and mentally substitute a mundane analogue for your statements: if you would be horrified to hear yourself say anything about someone of another religious or racial group that you have said in your commentary about anyone who does not share your opinions on the issues at hand, then that comment does not belong in your letter!)

ON THE SUBJECT OF THIN LINE HERALDRY

The issue of precisely when fimbriation or voiding becomes "excessive" and therefore grounds for return has been raised recently in conjunction with a number of submissions, most notably that of Thessala de Lyons ("Azure,on a cross voided argent, a lion couchant Or."). At the time Thessala's device was originally submitted, the feeling of the Laurel staff was that of the visual effect of what was actually "Azure, a cross azure, fimbriated argent" surrounded the central (but very small) lion was of a lion as primary charge surrounded by four angle brackets argent. In other words, the feeling was that the identifiability of the underlying charge was so diminished by the fact that it was set off from the field by only thin laths of argent that the charging rendered it unidentifiable.

This point of view was rooted in the long-standing precedent that fimbriation is excessive when it seriously diminishes the identifiability of a charge or charges. This principle was stated as long ago as the draft rules circulated by Wilhelm von Schlussel in the summer of 1981 prior to the Caerthan Symposium:

The College will not register a device or arms which is so cluttered with charges, lacking in contrast, or otherwise complicated, that it cannot be correctly blazoned from across a tourney field by a competent herald when displayed upon a banner or shield. Devices with excessive or complex use of fimbriation may fall under this rule.

Later rulings specifically banned fimbriation of living creatures, "complex" charges, etc. n the grounds of identifiability (Certain charges which were not fimbriated or voided in period, e.g., flaunches, were banned on historical grounds as early as September, 1981.) By the time the current rules were issued in the autumn of 1986, the term "thin line heraldry" had become such a commonplace that it could be included without a murmur defined as "chasing, excessive use of voiding, fimbriating any but the simplest charges, etc."

In an attempt to better define what we should consider "thin line heraldry", Laurel put out a call for research and commentary on the issue. While not as many commentors responded as Laurel would have liked, the results were interesting. Virtually all the examples clearly dated to period were ordinaries. The vast majority of the examples of fimbriation involved ordinaries of one tincture on a field of another tincture (e.g. "Azure, a cross gules fimbriated argent.") so that the identity of the charge was reinforced by its tincture, not merely defined by the outline.

Charges voided, (i.e., reblazonable as "X, an ordinary X fimbriated Y") were very rare and generally limited to a few of the ordinaries. For instance, Brault notes the "false escutcheon" which is a matter of debate among heralds but was probably an orle (which can be blazoned as "an escutcheon of the field fimbriated") and an annulet which was sometimes blazoned in terms equivalent to a roundel voided. A cross voided does appear, although it is uncommon, and the only really complicated charge that appears voided is the famous cross of Toulouse, which has frequently been discussed as an anomaly of period heraldry.

Equally striking was the fact that voided charges were rarely, if ever, themselves charged. Even fimbriated charges where the base charge and tincture of the field differed were seldom charged in classical heraldry. Indeed, period support is virtually non-existent for the Society usage of an ordinary voided or a hollow charge (e.g., an annulet) as a "frame" for another charge.

This being so, the question remains whether this is one of the areas where the "authentic" is at war with the "creative" perception of the Society. To put it another way, although most commentors would agree that the period precedent for such frames is weak, is there a general consensus in favour of tolerance of non-period style in this area and, if so, where does the dividing line fall?

On the basis of commentary in the College on the submission of Thessala de Lyons, it must be concluded that the College does in fact have a rather high tolerance for voiding and fimbriation, even in conjunction with other charges, so long as the charges in question are simple geometric charges (i.e., ordinaries) and are primary design elements placed at the center of the shield.

The press of opinion still seems to be against permitting a chief or flaunch or bordure to be fimbriated, even though these would be as identifiable as Thessala's cross, because these are by definition on the visual periphery of the shield and therefore inherently have less visual impact. A majority of the "frame designs" which have come before the College in the past have involved "frames" which were by definition closed (e.g., annulets, mascles, stars of David) and therefore were not only more identifiable in and of themselves, but also focused attention more closely on the charge framed. In virtually all cases, however, they were central to the design (i.e., placed at the center of the shield).

Clearly, the feeling of the College at large is that any plain ordinary which may be placed in the center of the shield (e.g., bend, fess, pale, cross, saltire) may be voided or fimbriated even if it is of the tincture of the field and, even if that ordinary is then charged, the visual distraction is not so great as to diminish identifiability significantly. (In point of fact, for "straight line" charges such as the bend, fess, pale, an ordinary of the field fimbriated would be visually identified and probably blazoned as two of the appropriate diminutive ordinary.)

So be it. Henceforth, any plain ordinary which may be placed in the center of the field may be voided or given equivalent treatment (e.g., fimbriation if it is of the tincture of the field) without this being considered "thin line heraldry" or excessive fimbriation, even if that ordinary is charged, so long as no other voiding or fimbriation is present on the submitted armoury.

Note that this does touch upon the issue of ordinaries which use complex lines of partition. This area was not really addressed by most commentors, although there seemed to be some "gut feeling" that the addition of the complex line again diminished identifiability to a great extent so that, for instance, a cross raguly should not be fimbriated, particularly if it were of the same tincture of the field. Laurel solicits commentary specifically on this issue for the August meeting.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PROTECTION OF HOUSEHOLD NAMES

For the benefit of those who have not been in on the entirety of this extremely controversial topic, a review is probably in order. The current phase of the discussion of the role which households and household names should play in our heraldic system occurred nearly two years ago when a submitter from Ansteorra submitted a name which used the surname "von Markheim", which is borne by a number of notables of the West Kingdom (including the current Vesper). This initiated a round of hot debate in the College on the subject of the protection of household names, the potential offense that could be caused if people were assumed to be of households they did not in fact belong to, etc. Some proposed ignoring household names entirely, i.e., changing the rules so that they were no longer protected. Others proposed a sort of "situation ethics" rule whereby only famous households or the households of famous individuals would be protected. Still others wanted extremely strict regulation of the use of household names by individuals, expressing outrage at some names which had been submitted that they felt infringed on well-known but unregistered household names. Complicating the situation was the fact that a group of commentors from the West, which had been given permission by a previous Laurel diverge in the direction of strictness from the general rules of the College and therefore did not send household names on for registration, felt that certain names should in fact be protected against use in personal names or other use, even if not registered.

After some six months of discussion in the College, Laurel issued a "compromise decision". Again, for those who were not around since September, 1987, it may be useful to quote a considerable portion of the decision in full since it summarizes the previous history of the issue:

Armoury and household names have been registered by the College "since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" (for example, a badge and an augmentation for Headless House were registered in 1973). Protection of the household names was sporadic, to say the least, for some years due largely to technological limitations apparently. In the course of the thorough recasting of the Rules for Submission that occurred in the summer of 1981, it was decided that, since the advent of a computerized Armorial had removed the technical difficulties, household names should be protected fully and that this should be reflected in the Rules. (Those who were present at the Caerthan Symposium in August of that year may recall the Elmet Herald of the East, one Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, doing some significant table-thumping in support of the concept that "what we registere we must protect"!)

This was the state of affairs for some years. At the very end of his tenure, Master Wilhelm passed the name of Hilary Fairehaven (now Nereid), despite the previously registered household of Fairhaven registered to Hrorek Halfdane of Faulconwood (now Chevron). As this was passed without any comment, it is unclear that it was intended to set a precedent. However, in later discussions during Master Baldwin's tenure, it was treated as if it had been a precedent. In the section of the Rules issued at the end of Master Baldwin's tenure dealing with individual names, no reference is specifically made to Society names and it is a matter of opinion whether the statement on conflict made in NR15b ("Personal names shall not conflict with other registered Society names") was intended to include conflicts with Society households. In the section of Household Name Conflict (NR21b), it is stated that "Conflict will not be considered between household names and personal surnames or bynames", but that can equally be taken to apply only to the registration of household names. In other words, it can be reasonably understood as a one-way proposition, like the "visual conflict test", i.e., that household names cannot conflict with personal names but personal names could conflict with household names.

When the submission of Alaric Liutpold von Markheim first came before the College, various Western heralds commented adversely and made some serious and well-considered suggestions for emending the situation as they considered it to stand. Summarized, they suggested that "famous" Society households with manufactured names be protected from infringement so long as only members of the household had registered names including the household name. Response to this suggestion from many heralds was immediate and strong: some felt this was an excellent idea, others felt that it was unfair to the "obscure" households, still others considered that it would be a convention impossible to administer with equity because of the difficulty of determining what was a "famous" household.

On the whole, this discussion has been an exercise in conflicting "gut feelings" and abstract theory for many members of the College, Laurel included. Many felt uncomfortable with the concept of someone calling themselves "Petunia of Bellatrix" or "Frodo von Halstern", but at the same time felt that there was something wrong with the concept of fame (or infamy) as a primary criterion for protection.

In considering this issue, we felt it necessary to evaluate the basic functions of our rules and to consider why the Society protects names and armoury against conflict. The discussions at the recent Symposium were very helpful in this regard, pointing as they did to the fact that our rules on conflict are designed to prevent confusion and avoid creating offense. If someone appears, through their name or armoury, to be someone or something that they are not, that can cause confusion or offense or both.

Clearly, the use of household names in personal names gives the impression that the person bearing that name is a member of the household in question. If they are not, then confusion is created and offense may be created, depending on the circumstances. Viewed in this light, it becomes apparent that Brachet and Vesper are correct in assuming that the Society must have a vital interest in preventing infringement of household names.

However, Gold Falcon, Crescent and the members of the College who have objected that the Western proposal is unworkable and places undue stress on the undeniably subjective criterion of "fame" are equally correct. As the history of the submission in question makes clear, a name that may be of unsurpassed fame in one or two kingdoms may be nearly unknown in others (the submittor's name was changed to Markheim by the heralds of Ansteorra to avoid a technical problem!). The names Elandris and von Halstern may convey immediate meanings to a subject of the East or Atlantia, but mean nothing to Caid, while Griffin Freehold may mean nothing to east of the Mississippi.

This being so, it seems that the only just and reasonable path is to protect household names, but to protect only registered household names. This will ensure that the name in question has been deemed free of conflict with protected mundane or Society entities, has been judged compatible with the period ambience of the Society and is not in and of itself offensive. By protecting all registered households, we avoid any accusations of favouritism and encourage selection of household names which are consonant with the goals of the College and the Society as a whole. Furthermore, since all registered households are included in our database with crossreferences in the Armorial, conflict checking is not only practical but convenient. Finally since the rules on conflict place restrictions on what may be registered as a household name, this should not unacceptably reduce the possibilities for personal name registration since a majority of pre-existent placenames from fiction, mundane history or Society geography cannot be registered as a household name.

PRECEDENT: Registered household names shall be protected by the College of Arms. Such household names shall not be included in personal names of those not members of the household without specific permission from the individual to whom the household name is registered. Such household names shall also be protected against infringement by the names of Society branches, Society awards or other Society households.

Initial verbal response to this ruling was positive with several Principal Heralds calling Laurel to praise the "Solomonic" nature of the decision. Rather quickly, however, opinion in the College shifted in reaction to a number of lengthy "minority reports" from influential members of the College. Several of the commentors used the rhetorical tactic of "reduction ad absurdam" effectively as they assailed the policy on the basis that household names registered in the past (e.g., House Smith and Caer Llewellyn) could prevent registration of names like Peter Smith or Emrys ap Llewellyn today.

Although the names actually returned over the past year and a half for "household name conflict" were minimal (a fraction of one percent of the total number of names submitted in that period) and most of those were for conflict with a half dozen "old time" household names, the controversy continued unabated, with several of the heralds who had originally proposed "situation ethics" protection of household names swinging about to oppose registration or protection of household names at all.

While this controversy was going on in the College, Laurel sought to gain general permissions to conflict for several of the more "generic" of the household names which had caused problems. Unfortunately, these proved difficult to gain, in some cases because the person to whom they had been registered had gafiated, in others because that person felt that they should be protected fully (this included at least one member of the College of Arms!). At the same time, she received a considerable amount of correspondence from local heralds and non-heraldic members of the populace which indicated that the feeling in the College of Arms as to the "laissez faire" attitude of the populace with regard to household names might not be correct.

As one compelling reason for continuing enforcement of protection of household names against infringement by personal names was a perceived "demand" on the part of the populace for such protection and a strong conviction that equity demanded "equal protection under the law" for previously registered household names, Laurel determined to give the populace an opportunity to comment on the issue through a poll in Tournaments Illuminated. (Partial results of this poll were included in the February cover letter; the remainder appears below.)

From the response to the poll, it is clear that the populace does not wish the College of Arms to "get out of the household name business", as one member of the College put it. Less than 15% of the sample felt that household names should not be registered at all. Nearly three-quarters of the sample felt that the names should be protected, although there was some discussion as to the level of protection required. As the graph on the next page shows, about one-third of those responding felt that the present level of protection was appropriate while a slightly greater proportion felt that household names should be protected only against official and unofficial (i.e., household) group names.

This being the case, Laurel feels justified in responding to the cries of the College of Arms and modifying the protection afforded to household names.

PRECEDENT: Effective immediately, the registration of a household name will not carry protection against infringement by others who may, through use of the name in their personal names, claim to be members of the household. Household names will continue to be protected against infringement by the names of official groups, orders, heraldic titles, other household names, etc. For example, the house of House Smith would not prevent registration of the name Peter Smith, but would prevent the registration of House Green Smith, the Order of the Iron Smith and the title of Poor Smith Herald.

TI POLL RESULTS: CONTINUED

As noted above, a substantial majority of those responding to the poll were solidly in favour of some sort of protection for household names. The chart below illustrates the dimensions of this majority.

[HOUSEHOLD NAMES

41.63% - Protect against groups/households

32.68% - Protect all

14.01% - Do not register

11.67% - Register, but do not protect]

The range of opinion on alternate persona names was much more varied and there was a substantial minority who felt that they should not be registered at all. However, these numbers were somewhat swollen by those who were not "voting" on the alternate persona issue at all, but misinterpreted the question to be one on non-Western personas. For a significant subset of those responding that alternate personas should not be registered, an alternate persona was identical to a Japanese or Chinese persona. Indeed, a number of the comments on this issue, were they to be transferred to a mundane context, would have to be considered disturbingly racist! This being so, it does not seem reasonable to make any significant changes to the current policy at this time, although the responses will no doubt be fertile ground for discussion at the Symposium.

[ALTERNATE PERSONA NAMES

37.70% - Do not register

26.98% - Protect and register without badge

22.22% - Protect, but register only with badge

13.10% - Register with badges but do not protect]

A FINAL "NUDGE"

While we are talking about Symposium, the sundry autocrats would like me to remind you all to get your reservations in as soon as possible. Also, if you are planning to contribute towards the Herald's or Scribe's Proceedings, you need to contract the relevant editors in the very near future!

Your servant,

[Alisoun]