Dallas, TX 75221-1646

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 following Letters of Intent considered at the Laurel meetings held Saturday, June 22 and Sunday, June 30, 1991, which considered the following letters of intent: An Tir (3/1), Caid (3/1), Ansteorra (3/11), Caid (3/12), Atenveldt (3/15), Trimaris (3/15), Meridies (3/20), East (3/25), Calontir (3/31), and West (3/31).

The July Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, July 27, 1991, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: An Tir (4/1), Caid (4/4), Atlantia (4/6), Ansteorra (4/15), East (4/15), Atlantia (4/19), Middle (4/22), West (4/25), Meridies (4/29), and Calontir (4/30).

The August Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 24, 1991, to consider the following Letters of Intent: Atenveldt (4/29), Ansteorra (5/1), Laurel (5/13), Trimaris (5/15), An Tir (5/16), Middle (5/20), Atenveldt (5/21), Atlantia (5/22), Meridies (5/30), and Calontir (5/31).

The September Laurel meeting is tenatively scheduled for Saturday, September;21, 1991, to consider Letters of Intent dated in June.

ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS

Lord White Stag asks that you remove Lady Rampart, Mistress Saerlaith l'Estrangere, from your rosters.

Lady Dolphin has a new address. Correspondence to her should now be sent to: Zenobia Naphtali (Leslie Schweitzer), 7212 Summertime Lane, Culver City, CA 90230. Her telephone number will remain the same.

Lord Vesper, Caoimhin ó Fiodhabhra, asks that you make the following changes to the roster and mailing list:

Lord Hund, Thorfinn Hrolfsson, is taking a six-month sabbatical. His place on the mailing list for that time is being taken by Lord Crux Australis.

Lord Crux Australis has a new address. It is Decion ap Dyfrwr Trefriw (Bruce Probst), 11/58 Edgar Street, Glen Iris, VIC 3146, AUSTRALIA.

He asks that you add to the mailing list the Leveret Herald, Juturna di Parma (Jasmine Goldstein), 341 Carolina Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94306.

In the decision on the device of Anna Tuomaantytär von Urwald (East Kingdom), Gyronny sable and argent, a mullet counterchanged, in the attached LoAR, there was some difference of opinion as to whether it was clear of Hieronymus Dernoma, Gyronny argent and sable, an estoile of seven points argent fimbriated sable. There is clearly one CVD for the tincture of the primary charge. No difference can be granted for merely reversing the tinctures on a gyronny field, so the issue of whether to register or return this proposal fell upon whether or not we are to grant difference between a mullet and an estoile. Lord Batonvert presented ample evidence that the two were considered equivalent throughout our period of study by all heraldic jurisdictions which used both.

While Lord Laurel (a secret sympathizer of the dreaded Authenticity Police) can see much educational and re-creative benefit to doing SCA heraldry in such a way as to most closely follow period heraldry, he honestly believes that there are very few heralds in the Known World who would be willing to look a person submitting a device in the face and tell them that a five pointed star and a six-rayed estoile are the same thing. (I am reminded of the line from "Young Frankenstein": "This could be dangerous. You go first.")

I believe that there are times when the visual reality (the "20th Century visual reality", if you will, but we are dealing with people untrained in any other century for the most part) is so strong as to overcome period heraldic practice, whether it be in granting difference or in permitting none. I also believe this to be one of those instances. Hence this submission is clear of Hieronymus' device with one CVD for tincture and another for type of the primary charge.

Falcons versus Ravens (or, Difference is for the Birds)

In the device submission for Eleonora Vittoria Alberti di Calabria (East Kingdom), Per saltire paly Or and purpure, and argent, in fess two falcons close sable, the LoI counted difference versus Corbet (Papworth, p. 30), Or, two ravens in fess proper, for type of charge on the grounds that period heralds saw them as different charges. (Both devices have the birds in their default position, close.) However, in the SCA, we have to take into account, as Lady Dolphin noted, not only "Clear Historical Differences" but "Clear VISUAL Differences". This issue is the flip-side, if you will, of the Estoile/Mullet question. Should be allow difference for two charges which look alike but which period heralds considered to be different (falcons and ravens, both sable), while not allowing difference for two charges which clearly look different but which period heralds did not treat as different (estoiles and mullets)? I would have a harder time explaining to a submitter that two birds which look almost exactly alike are really considered to be different heraldically than I would explaining to that same submitter that estoiles and mullets are really alike heraldically. Thank you, no.

Engrailed, Invected, and Indented (or, A Line of Division By Any Other Name)

The submission registered in the attached LoAR of Anne of Ayr (Ansteorra), Azure on a fess invected Or four shamrocks vert, brought up some discussion of whether we ought to be counting difference between engrailed, invected, and indented lines of division. Evidence was presented in the commentary that engrailed and indented were not considered different in period, with come late period evidence that invected was not. The question I put before the College at this time is whether or not in the future the College of Arms will no longer grant a CVD between indented, engrailed, and invected lines of division. Please do your research, thoughtfully consider your positions, and give me the benefit of your opinions so that this issue may be considered at the Laurel meeting to be held in October, 1991.

Ordinaries of Mail (or, Something Else to Call a MailOrd?)

In the discussion leading to the return of the device of Mikhail of Lubelska (Middle Kingdom), the question came up as to whether the SCA should allow ordinaries of mail. There are period examples of ordinaries of chain (for example, the Kingdom of Navarre with a cross, saltire, and orle of chain all conjoined), which has been used as a justification for permitting ordinaries (a pall, a bend sinister) of mail. But since we also allow maily as a field treatment, ordinaries of mail could also be seen as an ordinary "[field tincture], maily [contrasting tincture]", which would break the rule of contrast. I am therefore calling for a discussion of whether or not the College should allow ordinaries of mail. (There was also some commentary which favored banning maily as a field treatment, and I would like your opinions on this also.) I would like your opinions, discussions, and the results of your research to be received in time to be considered at the October Laurel meeting.

MISCELLANY

Earls and Counts are hot-blooded in youth, performing on the field of battle great deeds of valor for their King and surviving grievous wounds. They are possessed of inspiring and memorable war cries, an endless supply of fine horseflesh, and the love of country lasses.
Accustomed to being close to the King's person in battle, as middle and old age draws on they tend to fill positions at court which are concerned with ceremony, protocol, and administration. When very old they may retire to their castles, where their hands grow blue-veined, their big toes gouty, their memories vivid, and their eyes dim.
Earls are superlative in the vastly complicated Court offices of
Chancellors, High and Lord High
Chamberlains
Keepers of Seals, Keys, Counsels, Consciences
Stewards
Marshals

Trust them with all things Privy.

The Book of the Weird, by Barbara Ninde Byfield, p. 64

Your servant,

Return to the LoAR Index Page