P.O. Box 1646

Dallas, TX 75221-1646
October 1990

Unto the members of the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive does Da'ud ibn Auda, Laurel King of Arms, send Greetings!

The attached Letter of Acceptances and Returns covers the Letters of Intent considered at the Laurel meeting held on October 27, 1990. These were: Ansteorra (7/12), Caid (7/13), Trimaris (7/15), East (7/19), Meridies (7/21), Middle (7//22), Outlands (7/27), Atenveldt (7//30), and Calontir (7/31).

The November Laurel meeting will be held on Saturday, November 17, and will consider the following letters of intent dated in August: Ansteorra (8/10), Meridies (8/10), Caid (8/13), Ansteorra (8/15), Ansteorra (8/20), Caid (8/22), Atenveldt (8/29), Calontir (8/31), East (8/31), and West (8/31).

The December Laurel meeting is scheduled for December 22, and will consider the following letters of intent dated in September (and one in August): Middle (9/7), Laurel (9/10), Atlantia (9/20), Ansteorra (9/20), West (9/21), Meridies (9/22), An Tir (dated 8/13, treated as 9/24, its date of mailing), East (9/25), and Calontir (9/30).

The January Laurel meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 19, 1991, and will consider the letters of intent dated in October, 1990.

ROSTER CHANGES

1991 SYMPOSIUM

Two bids have been tendered offering to host the 1991 Known World Heraldic Symposium. I will summarize them very briefly here, and request that you consider each one carefully, and send your "vote for the bid of your choice" to me in time that a decision can be made in early December. (Those on the mailing list should receive or have received a copy of the full bid from each kingdom.) The two bids are (in alphabetical order):

Atlantia

Dates: Thursday, June 27 through Sunday, June 30
Location: Holiday Inn, Laurel, Maryland (a Washington, DC suburb)
Cost: $18.00 (including feast)
Sleeping facilities: On-site: $50.00 per room (up to 4) per night. Some crash space available.
Speakers: Dr. Gerard Brault (professor of French and Medieval History, author of Early Blazon)
Dr. Jeri Fleck (Geirr Bassi Haraldsson, author of The Old Norse Name)
Mistress Aelfwy Gyrthesdottir
Mistress Keridwen o'r Mynydd Gwyrth
Area Attractions:"The Smithsonian, used book stores, the Smithsonian, The National Cathedral, the Smithsonia, Music Stores, the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the Washington Monument, The Smithsonian, other historic sites, and of course, the Smithsonian."
Autocrat: Mistress Jaelle of Armida

East

Dates: June 28-30 or July 5-7, 1991 (please specify your choice when
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Cost: $15.00 before June 1; $18.00 after (includes feast, breakfast Saturday and Sunday)
Sleeping facilities: On-site: $18.00/night single; $12.00/night double
There is also a Holiday Inn nearby
Speakers: Dr. Gerard Brault (professor of French and Medieval History, author of Early Blazon)
Area Attractions:The Carnegie Museums (ancient Egypt, dinosaur fossils), Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, St. Anthony's Chapel (reliquary collection), University of Pittsburgh Nationality Rooms (various cultures from 5th C. B.C. to 18th C. A.D.), the Phipps Conservatory (botanicals from around the world), Rodef Shalom Synagogue's Biblical Garden
Autocrats:Lady Elsbeth Anne Roth and Lady Ts'vee'a bas Tseepora Levi Granada

QUERIES AND ANSWERS

It has been asked (and I have, in the rush to get everything done that needed doing before mid-October, neglected to answer) if the failure to put in percentages in the Cover Letters to the LoARs is deliberate. The answer in this case has to be yes. As Star, I found the overall percentages of acceptances and returns interesting, and I could go through my kingdom's acceptances and returns and figure our rate relative to the overall rate (which sometimes made me feel really good, and other times had the opposite effect). As Laurel, however, there are a lot of things demanding my attention, and figuring the percentages of acceptances and returns takes a much lower priority than getting the LoAR finished, printed and mailed out to you in as timely a manner as I can, keeping the correspondence up-to-date, etc., etc. I figure that anyone who really wants the percentages can add as easily as I can, and probably has more time to do it in, to boot. If enough people really want, I can resume this service, but unless I get enough requests, I will put my time into some of the more pressing duties of the office.

PENTACLES, PART II

I feel it incumbent upon myself to answer as best I may Lord Dragon's comments in his 10 October 1990 Letter of Comment, p. 1, regarding the return of the device of Cerridwen of Raventree (August 1990 LoAR, p. 16). I will state outright that this was NOT returned under IX.2 ("Magical or religious symbolism that is excessive or mocks the beliefs of others will not be registered."). I do not find that a single symbol of a religion on a device to be excessive in any sense of the word. Nor does it in any way "mock the beliefs of others". It was not returned "solely because hers is a minority religion whose symbols arouse unusually strong feelings in some members of the populace" (Lord Dragon's words, emphasis mine). In polls which I myself and which others took, not just of heralds but of the general populace, a significant percentage of those responding found a pentacle to have modern connotations which they found offensive. Not just a small, or even significant, minority: in the poll I took of the populace in Dallas (a relatively cosmopolitan area), the percentage ran well over 60%. A percentage that large is NOT just "some members of the populace"; it is too large a percentage to ignore or discount.

That a Wiccan symbol has been adopted (inverted, admittedly, but on a five- pointed object that requires a rotation of only 36 degrees) by so-called "Satanist" groups and has received a lot of publicity as being a symbol used by those groups is very unfortunate. But when a symbol shows up on the front pages of major daily newspapers, and in Newsweek and Time magazines, labelled as symbols used by "Satanic cults" in "evil rituals", it creates an atmosphere which all of the good will and attempts at educating the populace (within and without the SCA) simply cannot overcome.

Arguments that use of the symbol was "tantamount to casting a spell" were not even considered in the return of this device. Arguments on religious grounds were not considered. I personally consulted with the submitter last April before this resubmission was made, and have written her since the return. I have a lot of sympathy for her position, and wish it could be otherwise. (I am not going to say that "some of my best friends are pagans", though I have a number of friends who happen to be such.) (I did note in the LoAR that the device was being returned in spite of my personal feelings, too.) But to ask me to register something which more than half the general populace finds disturbing or offensive because of the 20th century connotations it has acquired is asking more than I can in good conscience do.

THE MUNDANE NAME ALLOWANCE

There was, in the presentation and in the commentary of the July LoIs some discussion about the Mundane Name Allowance (not the "Mundane Name Loophole"). Such allowance is neither "vile" nor purposeless; it is a courtesy we extend to those who wish to use a single given name within and without the Society. If someone who wishes us to remove this courtesy from the Rules for Submissions can present evidence that the occasional abuse which is made of it heavily outweighs the benefits of good public relations and simplifying the lives of those members who choose to use it, we will discuss the possibility of rescinding it. Until such time as that, however, the Allowance remains.

[FIELDLESS] VERSUS X

The reason I place "[Fieldless]" at the beginning of the blazons of fieldless badges is to make it clear that the field tincture has not been left off in error. I do not consider "[Fieldless]" to be a part of the "real" blazon, but an administrative notation which may sometimes prevent confusion or the belief that the lack of a field tincture is due to a typographical error. [Not that I ever make typogrephical erors, mined yu!]

A CALL FOR COMMENTARY

I would like to open commentary (and, I hope, stimulate some research) on just how heralds in the real world, both in period and in modern times, "see" or "count" difference between coats of arms. What constitutes difference? How much is enough? What kinds of changes did, or did not, count for difference, and why? For example, when the arms of Shakespeare (Or, on a bend sable a spear of the first, the point steeled proper) were matriculated by the English College of Arms, there was some discussion by York Herald, Ralph Brooke, that the arms were too close to the arms of Mauley (Or, a bend sable) and some of its cadet branches (Or, on a bend sable three dolphins [or three eagles, or three wyverns, depending on the branch] Or. The then Garter King of Arms, Sir William Dethick, and the Clarenceaux King of Arms, in their defense of Shakespeare's arms, wrote that "as for the spear in bend, it [is] a patible difference" (that is, too prominent a feature of the arms to be regarded merely as a minor addition for cadency. Apparently, at least in the late 1500's, a change to type and number of tertiaries alone was considered sufficient (though arguable). (For a fuller discussion of this specific issue, please see The Heraldry of Shakespeare, C.W. Scott-Giles, Heraldry Today, 1971, pp. 27-41.) So I ask again, what constitutes difference? How much is enough? What kinds of changes did, or did not, count for difference, and why?

I want to make it clear that this discussion of difference is not, repeat NOT, with an eye toward changing the Rules for Submission. That we may wish to do so at some time in the future is of course a possibility -- the Rules for Submission are a "living document", and are subject to such changes as the College may decide -- but there is currently no agenda for changing the requirements of the Rules for Submission with regards to the amount of difference the SCA requires at this time. The College of Arms is supposed to be a research and educational body in addition to its duties of the registration of names and armory. Let's do some research and educating on this issue.

MISCELLANY

Contrary to (sometimes) popular opinion, the unofficial motto of the Laurel office is NOT "None shall pass!" (Hmmm, what would that be in Latin, I wonder?)

Until next month, I remain, as ever,

Your servant,

Return to the LoAR Index Page