P.O. Box 1646
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
The June Laurel meeting was held on Saturday, June 20, 1992, and
considered the following Letters of Intent: East (3/5), Ansteorra
(3/8), Caid (3/19), Middle (3/20), Atlantia (3/22), Atenveldt
(3/27), Outlands (3/26), Calontir (3/28), Meridies (3/30), and
Trimaris (3/15) and An Tir (3/15) will be considered on Sunday,
June 28, at the Known World Heraldic Symposium in An Tir.
ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS
Please remove Ottar Eriksson, Keel Pursuivant (East) from the
Roster. He has moved and does not have the time for activity
in the College that he had.
Please add to your Roster as Sycamore Herald (East) Esmeralda
la Sabia (Andrea Gansley-Ortiz), 5920 Nicholson Street, Pittsburgh,
PA 15217. She will not be commenting at this time.
An updated roster is included in this packet. (It will, of course,
be outdated no later than June 28, but, what the hey!) If there
are any changes or corrections which need to be made, please let
the incoming Lord Laurel know as soon as possible.
RULES REVIEW AND REVISION (or, Part III in a Continuing Series)
The commentary running nearly unanimously in favor of Lord Palimpsest's
suggested revised wording (proposed in his letter of March 20,
1992), the Rules for Submissions, VIII.5. is revised to read:
VIII. 5. Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained design.
A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined,
like three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir Apparent
to the throne of England. Since there is no field in such a design,
it may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to
define their shape, such as bordures and orles, nor to cut off
their ends, such as ordinaries or charges throughout.
The underlined phrase replaces "Ideally, a fieldless design
will have all its elements linked together".
GENERAL QUESTION (or, Crux Australis, Part II)
In his LoC of 5 June, 1992, Lord Crux Australis asks "what, exactly, is required to have Laurel publish a public answer to a query?" Since he calls for a public answer, I will attempt to explain what I face here.
Lord Decion, there are several factors involved in discussing
this question. One is the volume and timing of the work I do.
With the volume of submissions running at about 300 actions per
month, I don't remember the vast majority of decisions that get
made, much less the reasons for them. Add to that the fact that
at any given moment, I am dealing with four months' worth of these
submissions (those reviewed at the last Laurel meeting, for which
I am trying to get the LoAR done, and the LoIs and LoCs for the
next three months Laurel meetings). Then, because of the time
lag between the Laurel meeting, the mailing of the LoAR, the time
for the LoAR to get to you and you to review it and write up your
questions, I am at least a month further away from the LoAR you
are inquiring about. (As an example, your June 5 letter has some
questions on the April LoAR: I have already mailed out the May
LoAR and am preparing for the June Laurel meeting, which preparation
takes nearly a full week. So I am now two months away from decisions
I probably didn't remember two weeks later.) As a consequence,
I cannot simply deal with your questions as I do with much of
the correspondence I receive: formulate an answer off the top
of my head, type up a letter on my lunch hour at work (as I am
doing right now), and mail the responses out. To answer the questions
you ask every month (without your having prioritized them in any
way or otherwise indicating which are the ones you really want
answered and which are more rhetorical), would involve my taking
all of your questions, going through and pulling the files on
the specific submissions, pulling the LoAR in question, re-reading
through all the commentary and the text of the decision, and formulating
an answer based on that research. If your June 5 LoC may be taken
as typical, you ask five different questions a month, each of
which is going to take anywhere from twenty to thirty minutes
to pull, research, and formulate an answer. At one-and-a-half
to two-and-a-half hours, that's an entire evening for me, not
including telephone calls coming in (I probably average three
to four interruptions by telephone an evening), etc. I cannot
afford to spend that much time answering one person's questions,
especially since the answers to those questions are to be found
in the commentary made on the submission in question, all of which
you should have received. I do not pull the decisions made at
Laurel meetings out of a hat, out of thin air, or from up my sleeve.
They are all based on the commentary received by the time of
the Laurel meeting, on prior Laurel precedent, and by attempting
to consistently interpret the Rules for Submissions.
All this is even assuming that I see the questions to begin with.
As the mail comes in, I try to skim through it, but I do not
have the time to read each and every piece of mail. If it's clearly
an LoI or an LoC, it may just get set aside for filing and for
cutting and pasting. Someone else does the filing for me, so
I wouldn't see it then, and I don't normally read the "cut
and paste" commentary until the week before the applicable
Laurel meeting, and LoAR commentary will quite likely have been
separated out by then.
I guess the short answer is this: If you have an important question
you want an answer to, while you may collate it in with the text
of an LoC for general mailing to the College, it is more likely
to be handled properly and answered if you make it a separate
page or letter in your mailings to Laurel.
Now, to give brief answers to the questions you asked in your
LoC of June 5:
Mikhail Andreyevich Putnikov. Is the "nature of the emblazon" completely unheraldic? If the majority of the commenters didn't have a problem with it, why should Laurel "take the extra time" (which doesn't exist in Laurel meetings: my meetings have been running nine to ten hours, which makes for a long day no matter how you look at it) to discuss it?
Ito Nori. I disagree with your statement that "if we stop
registering mon then we don't need to protect them."
If we stopped registering English-style armory, would we stop
protecting English armory? The two actions are not cause-effect
Gareth Strengmakere. What were the blazons of the two devices?
(Remember, I'm at work doing this on my lunch hour, and don't
have the files to look up here.) Would I call conflict between
"Azure, a sword argent" and "Azure, an arrow argent"?
I don't know. Certainly, I'd give them a CD as primary charges,
and probably as secondary charges. As tertiaries, I'm not so
certain. In any case, I don't know, considering the way both
swords and arrows tend to be drawn in the SCA, that I'd apply
RfS X.2 (Sufficient Difference) between them.
Elric ap Madog. Would we allow the combination of the name "Elric"
to be used with a black sword in the armory? I don't know. Is
this "Elric" of the black sword as well-known as Corwin
of the rose? (Not that I'm all that familiar with either.) Given
that the commenters were probably split on the issue (since I
didn't make a call on it), I'm not sure I would call it either
way without more research, including re-reading the applicable
commentary on this submission.
Morgan O'Breen. Does this conflict with Sauron? I don't know.
(What is Morgan's blazon? What is Sauron's blazon? I
don't have this stuff memorized; it's been a long time since I've
read The Lord of the Rings.) Why use a marginal call if another
more solid reason for return exists? People gripe at me enough
about subjectivity and the need for being able to predict, through
objectively and consistently applied rules and decision, prospective
Laurel calls. I have to make enough "judgment calls"
every month without going out of my way to find more.
A FINAL WORD AS LAUREL (or, Ten-Ten and On the Side)
Well, this is my final LoAR as Laurel. It's been a fun two years.
I said, when I took this office, that I would "make every
attempt to be consistent, fair, and impartial. I will also make
mistakes ..., and sometimes appear inconsistent, unfair, and biased....
I will try to be accessible to you, to kingdom and local heralds,
and to submittors.... I try to answer all correspondence within
a week of receipt...." (Cover Letter, August 7, 1990, pp.
2-3) I also said that I would resign from this office before
I burn out, so that I would want to remain active in the College
afterwards. I think I have done that. I have also tried to "make
the trains run on time", and I believe I have done that,
as well. Not everything that I wanted to do got done, but there's
only so much time in the day, and so many days in the month.
I could not, of course, have done it without a lot of help. My
thanks go out to many people, so many that I am not going to try
to list them all here for fear of forgetting one. But I especially
want to thank those I have come to rely on as my "mainstays":
Debbie Thomas (Ailith ferch Dafydd), my administrative assistant,
Ken and Sue Montgomery (Conor Diarmuid mac Ruis and Rhiannon o
Goed Niwlog), David Heiligmann (Cyndcyrn Conn Corr), and Jane
Fisher (Sorcha ní Fhaoláin), who were always there
except for very rare occasions when they simply could not rearrange
their schedules to attend. It would have been a lot tougher without
This is not goodbye. I am not going away now. We're trying
to establish a new way of doing things here: keeping the people
who become Laurel active in the College after they step down.
(And I have already told Bruce that if he burns himself out before
he steps down from this office, and goes away afterwards, Guido
and I will drive out to his house and do ugly things to
So, look forward to hearing from me on a regular basis, and having
me turn up at various heraldic events as I can. I've got some
projects in mind and some things I'd like to do, and I may occasionally
call on you for ideas and critiques.
Until then, not goodbye, but "au revoir".
"To Mr Robert Castle of Glatton
Whereas by vertue of his Ma[jesty's] commission under the Great
Seale of England you were warned by the bayliff of the hundred
of Normancrosse to apeare before me Lancaster Herald of Armes
at Stilton, where I sat in his Ma[jesty's] behalf and service
to register all the gentlemen of name and of armes
w[ith]in the same hundred, according to the tenour of his Ma[jesty's]
said Commission; and you not only made default of appearance there,
but after, by myself being warned to Huntington, have likewise
made default of your aparaunce there also, to the hindrance of
his Ma[jesty's] service and contempt of the Great Seale of England.
And forasmuch as I fynde in the last visitation of this shire,
which was about the beginning of the reigne of the late Queene
Elizabeth of happy memory, that your family had then no Coate
of Armes prooved or allowed unto them, and that since that tyme
you have falsly and w[ith]out true ground usurped the auncient
armes of one Castle of Warwickshire, these are therefore to require
you, and in his Ma[jesty's] name streightly to charge and command
you, that from henceforth you do not only forbeare the using or
the bearing of the said armes w[hich] you have hitherto usurped
against all right and custome of the lawe of armes, but also any
other armes whatever, untill you know the Earle Marshall's pleasure
therein; and hereof fayle you not, as you will aunswere the contrary
at your perill for your further contempt hereof. Given under
my hand at Huntingdon the 28 day of August, A D'ni 1613, and in
the eleventh yeare of his Ma[jesty's] reigne of England, France
and Ireland, and of Scotland the seaven and fourtieth.
NICH. CHARLES, LANCASTER
Marshall to Clarenceaux King of Armes."
From "Charles' Visitation" by John Bedells, The Coat
of Arms, Volume IX, No. 157, Spring 1992, pp. 190-191
[Wouldn't it be nice?]
Pray believe that I remain, as ever, your servant,
Da'ud ibn Auda
Return to the LoAR Index Page
Last Updated: $Date: 2001/11/15 04:30:53 $GMT
Copyright © 1997 Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.