Mistholme,
Box 1329,
Manhattan Beach,
CA 90266-8329
3 August 1992

Unto the College of Arms entire, and to all who may read these presents, does Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, Laurel King of Arms, send greeting!

Herein are the Acceptances and Returns for the Laurel meeting of 19 July 1992, my first full meeting. We considered the following Letters of Intent: West, 27 Feb 92; West, 4 April 92; Calontir, 14 April 92; Caid, 15 April 92; West, 15 April 92; East, 16 April 92; An Tir, 21 April 92; Middle, 26 April 92; and Atlantia, 26 April 92.

The August Laurel meeting will be held on Sunday, 23 August 1992, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: Atenveldt, 23 April 92; Meridies, 26 April 92; East, 10 May 92; Trimaris, 15 May 92; Middle, 16 May 92; Atlantia, 17 May 92; Calontir, 19 May 92; An Tir, 21 May 92; Atenveldt, 25 May 92; and Caid, 25 May 92. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 16 Aug 92.

The September Laurel meeting will be held on Sunday, 27 September 1992, and continued on Sunday, 11 October 1992. The combined "September meeting" will consider the following Letters of Intent: Ansteorra, 1 May 92; Outlands, 26 May 92; Ansteorra, 29 May 92; Middle, 6 June 92; Atlantia, 9 June 92; Ansteorra, 14 June 92; Ansteorra, 15 June 92; West, 15 June 92; An Tir, 17 June 92; Meridies, 17 June 92; Caid, 22 June 92; Calontir, 22 June 92; and Atenveldt, 24 June 92. Commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 28 Aug 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 20 Sept 92.

The October Laurel meeting will be held on Sunday, 25 October 1992. The following Letters of Intent are currently scheduled for that meeting: East, 22 June 92; Outlands, 10 July 92; Middle, 10 July 92; Atlantia, 12 July 92; Trimaris, 15 July 92; Caid, 16 July 92; An Tir, 20 July 92; Calontir, 21 July 92; Atenveldt, 23 July 92; and Meridies, 23 July 92. Commentary on these LOIs should be in my hands by 25 Sept 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 18 Oct 92.

The Black Lion Signet of An Tir has a new address: Jocelyn Crookhorn (Janice White), 1936 Everest Ave., Richland, WA 99352.

After 6 August, Sable Crane Pursuivant of Ansteorra will have a new address (again): Cyndcyrn Conn Corr (David Heiligman), Box 1186, Ralls, TX 79357; (806) 253-3149.

Some typos: Lady White Mantle's mundane name is Avril Brass, not Bass. Lord Aegis's postal code is L2N 5S3, not 5B3. Please correct your rosters.

The Vesper Principal Herald of the West, Caoimhin O'Fiodhabhra, will be stepping down on 22 August. He intends to remain active in the College, and is assembling a commenting group in his local area; please keep him on the mailing list. His successor is Hirsch von Henford, currently Compline Herald (Ken Mayer), 2308 Alva Ave., El Cerrito, CA 94530; (510) 215-5879; please add him to your mailing lists straight away.

The Oaken Herald of the Middle, Garlanda de Staines, has understandably decided to retire from the College so she can be the Crown Princess of the Midrealm. Her successor is Dmitrii Volkovich (John Polzinetti), 8142 Towson Blvd., Miamisburg, OH 45342; (513) 859-3088. He will not be commenting at this time.

The new Golden Wing Herald of Atenveldt is Janet Gorden (Jeanette Dawson), 1794 West 3870 South, Apt D-203, West Valley City, UT 84119; (801) 977-9359. She wishes to comment, so add her to your mailing lists; and please remove from the roster the former Lady Golden Wing, Aislinn Rowena MacKenzie.

Please remove Freodhoric Jorgenssen Sjoaureborg, formerly Trefoil Herald of the Outlands, from your rosters. We were misinformed last month: while he intends to continue heraldic activity, it will be as a member of the new Lady Trefoil's staff.

Also, please remove El Munadi Herald of Caid, Akagawa Yoshio, from the mailing list. Mundane pressures leave with no time for commentary at present.

Finally, please remove Baroness Éowyn Amberdrake from your mailing list. Her employers plan to send her to various parts of the globe within the next several months; she would have no chance to peruse everyone's commentary.

For many years now, we've permitted couples to register household badges jointly, under both their names. One member of the couple was designated the main badge-holder, and the badge's blazon appeared under his/her name in the Armorial; but the badge was cross-referenced under the name of the couple's other half. (See, for instance, Rule AP5 of the 1986 Rules for Submission.)

Two such joint household badges were considered at the July meeting. It was noted in the commentary that the current Rules (1990 vintage) don't allow for joint registration: a household name and badge are specifically "retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative." I don't think this was deliberate, but was simply an oversight during the Rules revision; certainly, we've registered joint badges since then (e.g., the badge jointly registered to Jehan le Batarde and Ygraine of Preston, on the LoAR of Feb 92, p.8).

I'd like to continue joint registration of household names and badges. My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder -- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. -- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O. Moreover, to ensure that this confusion doesn't arise again, I propose to change the Section in the Administrative Handbook, Registerable Items: B.3, Household Names, to read:

The rest of the paragraph shall remain unchanged; and paragraphs D.3 and E.1 of the same Section shall be amended to refer to paragraph B.3, to include joint registration of fielded and fieldless badges as well as names.

I welcome suggestions on the new wording: Is there any way of making it less awkward, without completely rewriting the whole Section? Does it say what it's intended to say? Please send your comments to Lord Palimpsest.

When I accepted the Laurel post, I knew that eventually, inevitably, I'd overturn some policy or precedent of some previous Laurel. That didn't mean I'd go out of my way to look for precedents to overturn; it would just happen. Well, it just happened, at the July meeting; see the discussion on Mon, below. It will continue to happen; so I want to say a few words about the process.

In general, precedents are made during the consideration of a specific submission. The facts on hand at the time of that submission are weighed, balanced against external factors (e.g. SCA policy on, say, pretension), and a synthesis reached. The same is true for the overturning of precedent: it's triggered by a specific submission, which happens to involve a topic where the College has had problems in the recent past. It's not generally something a Laurel Sovereign plans.

For that reason, a new Laurel doesn't begin his tenure by announcing all the precedents he intends to overturn. He may not have any such intention; or he may not have identified the ones with which he disagrees, though he may have some vague ideas. I won't deny I've disagreed with some previous Laurel rulings -- as a regular commenter during the last seven years, I'd've been hard pressed not to disagree with some Laurel rulings. But I probably won't be moved to take action on those rulings until the issue is right under my nose, so to speak.

This may mean returning a submission that, under a previous Laurel's standards, might have been registerable. It's been suggested that this is unfair to the submitters, who won't know my opinion on certain issues until it's too late -- that, if I should overturn a precedent, the old precedent must still apply to the submission that sparked my decision. I can't accept this, for two reasons. First, my opinions on most matters are a matter of record (those seven years of commentary, again); they should come as no surprise to anyone who's been active long enough to become a Kingdom's submissions herald.

Second, I can't and won't tie Laurel's hands so completely. To quote a previous discussion on this point: "I feel we have an obligation to try to be fair to people whose submissions were en route at the time a change took place; but I also feel that this obligation is bidirectional. A certain amount of compromise is necessary on both sides. ... By exempting the submitter from the change he precipitates, we deny ourselves the right to correct mistakes until they have become irrevocable. By subjecting the submitter to the changes, we deny our role as a service organization. Neither extreme is acceptable as a universal solution." (LoAR cover letter of 29 Dec 85; emphasis mine.)

If the precedent being overturned is a fundamental tenet of our heraldic system, I'll exempt the submitter who sparked my action. But if my "overturning" is only a minor re-interpretation that doesn't change the Rule itself, I'll probably apply my new ruling to the submission at hand. Beyond that, I can't very well say in advance what precedents -- if any -- I may overturn; it will depend on what's submitted.

One of the precedents overturned at the July meeting was Master Da'ud's ruling (Jan 92, p.15) on how we count difference against mundane Mon. He was treating Mon as omni-tinctured fielded armory -- essentially, armory registered in every possible permutation of solid tinctures -- and thus counting no difference whatever for field or charge tincture (while still granting a CD for field division, versus the Mon's theoretically solid tincturing). The practical effect of his ruling was to set up two parallel systems of difference, one for tinctured armory, one for mundane Mon; and it seemed to unduly protect a set of armories that, at best, were on the fringe of the SCA's time-space domain.

I think it better to treat Mon just as we treat our own tinctureless badges: a special case of our fieldless badges. Per Rule X.4.d, tinctureless armory thus gets a CD for fieldlessness (see X.4.a.i), and the second necessary difference must come from some category that doesn't involve tincture. Such tinctureless armory is found in the SCA (mostly as seals) and in European heraldry (e.g. the Stafford knot); it seems simplest to deal with Japanese Mon on the same footing.

Thus, against the armory found in Hawley's Mon: The Japanese Family Crest, we now get an automatic CD for fieldlessness; on the other hand, just as with other fieldless badges, divided fields will no longer count towards difference. In the long run, I think this will work out for the best: it will be closer to how the Japanese treated their own armory, and it won't require special-case considerations in the Rules.

Two of July's name submissions sparked a debate on acceptable style for Irish patronymics -- as opposed to grammatically correct style, not quite the same thing -- with Lord Dragon taking one position in the debate and Lord Habicht the other. As far as I can follow the debate, the first position holds that Irish patronymics have a correct grammar which must be used; and, in particular, this means:

The second position holds that, while the above statements are grammatically correct, they were not as strictly followed as grammarians might like; there were, in fact, so many grammatical violations in period that it makes no sense to adhere to the above rules. Combinations of Irish particles with anglicized names (and vice versa), or feminine given names with "male-form" patronymics, were commonly used in period; and we should permit them in Society names as well.

I'm undoubtedly over-simplifying both positions enormously -- and perhaps gotten some details wrong, too -- but I hope I've correctly portrayed the essence of each argument. My forte isn't onomastics, so I must rely on the advice of the onomasticists in the College. Cases that require changing (or even returning) an Irish name will depend on which of these arguments I follow. I don't want to make unnecessary changes to submitted names; but I don't want to condone incorrect practice, either.

This sort of debate is best settled by period evidence. Lord Habicht tells me he's compiled evidence that women did use "male-form" patronymics; Lord Dragon tells me he has documentation for his side as well. Other knowledgeable parties in the College may likewise have evidence to present. I urge everyone, therefore, to publish their findings and viewpoints within the next few months. It would be nice if we could end the year with this matter discussed and settled, once and for all.

A few of July's returns were for incorrect emblazonry: a charge was drawn in a non-period style, or couldn't be identified from the emblazon. The College can't be too fussy about emblazonry: most of our clients aren't skilled heraldic artists. But it remains true that charges must be drawn in a period, recognizable style.

At what point, then, will a problem emblazon be returned? When do we no longer feel comfortable with a simple instruction to "Draw the X wider (or bolder, or whatever)"? Several factors contribute to the decision, but the main factor is the recognizability of the submitted emblazon. If, say, a bordure is drawn too narrow, but still recognizably a bordure, I'll blame the problem on the submitter's lack of expertise -- and tell the submitter, through her Kingdom heralds, to "draw the charge correctly". But if the charge is so badly drawn as to be unrecognizable - worse, as to be confused with some other charge - then the submission must be returned. The policy already exists for some cases - e.g. a pile vs. chaussé - and I have extended it to arrows vs. any long skinny charge in this LoAR.

Modern-style drawings have the same problem of identifiability, with the additional problem of being screamingly non-medieval. This is why we insist that a unicorn be drawn as a medieval unicorn, and why the unicornate horse is banned: not only is the latter too easily confused with the horse, it's a 20th-Century rendition. If we wish to grant the period difference between unicorn and horse, we must insist on the period rendition -- which means returning unicornate horses.

Even when the modern-style drawing is identifiable, its intrusive modernity can be reason enough for return. Trian aspect, "pinking shear" lines of division, lightning flashes (shazams) -- all are non-medieval drawing styles, and all have been grounds for return in the past. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to encourage correct emblazon style through education, not regulation -- but pragmatically, I know that regulation drives the lesson home. (It took years of returning trian-aspect emblazons before our clients stopped submitting them.)

Our touchstone is this: If it can be mistaken for some other charge, it's drawn incorrectly. If it's a flagrantly modern depiction, it's drawn incorrectly. Either of these risks a return.

I recently had occasion to pore through A.C. Fox-Davies' Heraldic Badges (published 1907), which still remains a leading authority on the subject. Fox-Davies includes a comprehensive list of English badges, most of which are period. I was struck by the fact that none of the badges cited include an overall charge. This agrees with my own observation: overall charges were rarely used in period armory. There are only a handful of period examples of devices with overall charges; and a good fraction of those charges were brisures, not part of the original design. (E.g. England and overall a bendlet sable, the arms of the Comte de Derby; this and other examples are in plate 1 of the Oxford Guide to Heraldry.) Overall charges that weren't brisures obscured their underlying charges, making them hard to recognize; for example, the crozier in the arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury is almost completely hidden by the pallium overall.

For SCA fieldless badges, overall charges have additional problems. Many SCA badges have the underlying charge and overall charge of different tincture classes: e.g. a pheon sable surmounted by a martlet argent. If overall charges take their contrast from the field, then such a badge cannot be displayed on any background without losing contrast.

These facts have been troubling the College for some time; the discovery that period badges didn't use overall charges was, for me, the deciding factor. I therefore propose to return fieldless badges with overall charges, as being non-period badge style. (Tertiary charges will still be permitted on fieldless badges: there are a few period examples of that usage.)

If there are no strong objections to this proposal, it will take effect at the January Laurel meeting. Objections should include counter-evidence, showing period instances of overall charges in badges -- or else a logical reason we should continue the practice in spite of the evidence. Give me your opinions, pro and con, by the end of December.

Please note the discussions on Percival Beaumont (p.19), Tristram du Bois (p.23), and Riognach MacLeod (p.24). All these discussions involve possible new interpretations of the Rules, or changes thereto; and reasoned opinion from the commenters is requested. (And who knows? You might find the rest of the LoAR worth reading, too.....)

Know me ever to be, Your servant,




Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme,
Laurel King of Arms.