WPC80 2BVVZ\#|cle)x/c81,c P7P"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoZi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSi.i.c{S{SxSxSxoSoSZAZSZSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSlJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8xHP LaserJet IIIPHPLASIII.PRSc P7,\,<`KP2\  Z[\#|cHP LaserJet IIIPHPLASIII.PRSc P7,\,<`KP2N> "Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoZi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSi.i.c{S{SxSxSxoSoSZAZSZSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSlJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8x"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~wCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d~8~8vddddddkNkdkd~d~d~ddddddYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddwooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUwŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCx"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdzN`zoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzoddddddodddddddddood8doddNorddoddN8ooddddoNododdddoooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUwŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYCx"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdzzzsCYozzdozzooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNYdYddddddCddddddddd8zdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdddddzdzdzdzddddddddd8ddddddddododo8o8zddddzdzddNddddodododddddodoNCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd岲dCCȐzȲxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUwŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYCx2'hH#CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)CG Times Bold Italic (Scalable)"Sh5^;NhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdzNdzzozzzCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNdddddddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzdddddddddddddddddood8ddddNdkdddzdzdzFz8ooddהddoNododzdzdzdooooozdzNCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddNdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUwŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYCx"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxofAPoxfx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SSA]_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8x"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sffoxf`xx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.fSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoSoSoSxSfSfSfSfSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS.SSSSSSSoS]S]S].].foSoSxSxSofSfSSASSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]A8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSZSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8x2*(\,R60"Sh5^1AVSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SoooxofxASofxxfuo]fxooff888SS8SSJSJ;S]..S.]SSSAA.]JoSJASSSS SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.oSoSoSoSoSuoJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]fJoSxSxSxSfJxSfSoSoSoSoSoSoSxSoSoSoSoSxSxSxSxSxS]]S.SSSSASZSSoSfSfSf;f.{x]x]xSxS{oSoS]A]S]SfSfSfSx]x]x]x]x]ofSfA8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSSASJJSSSSSS8SSSS888ZZS..SSffSSxS```8ZS8"xxSxixxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SoS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxofo]f]oJoAfJJxJA.oJo]]xJoSxJxffSfSSfJfJofo]fffooASxfffJffff88SSSSoSSSffff8fSJ8xx/c81,c P7P8wC;,[hXw P7XP7zC;,sXz_ p^7X66uC;,-/3Xu&_ x$&7XXt4xC;,HiXx*0 xM7Xy.f81,f_ p^76z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xt|+d81,H[d*0 xM7xxKKKKixiZZZZZZZiiii----iiiiiiiiiiiiiixiZiZZii<KiKiiZiZKKZiiiiK- xP xPSeptember cover letter hhp.@hpp  10 November 1992 (XXVII)  XX   #Xx P[hXP##c P7P#x` `  hh@hppMistholme, x` `  hh@hppBox 1329, x` `  hh@hppManhattan Beach, CA 902668329 x` `  hh@hpp10 November 1992  x|Unto the College of Arms of the Known World, greetings from Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, Laurel King of Arms!  xNormally, I'd begin this letter with the ritual apology for tardiness. However, given the circumstances of the  xSeptember Laurel meeting partly held in October; twothirds the size of the Heraldic Conclave of Aug 79;  xfollowed a fortnight later by another meeting, more than half its size I respectfully decline to apologize this time. However, I do ask your pardon.  xHerein are the Acceptances and Returns from the Laurel meeting, officially dated 27 September 1992: from  xAnsteorra, 1 May 92; Outlands, 26 May 92; Ansteorra, 29 May 92; Middle, 6 June 92; Atlantia, 9 June 92;  xAnsteorra, 14 June 92; Ansteorra again, 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.  yO= Schedule TP  xThe October meeting was held on Sunday, 25 October 1992, and considered the following Letters of Intent: East,  x222 June 92; Outlands, 10 July 92; Middle, 10 July 92; Atlantia, 12 July 92; Trimaris, 15 July 92; Caid, 16 July  x@92; An Tir, 20 July 92; Calontir, 21 July 92; Atenveldt, 23 July 92; and Meridies, 23 July 92. The September and October meetings, together, exceeded the Heraldic Conclave of Aug 79 in number of items processed.  xThe November meeting will be held on Sunday, 22 November 1992, and will consider the following Letters of  x~Intent: Ansteorra, 21 July 92; East, 25 July 92; Caid, 13 Aug 92; Calontir, 17 Aug 92; An Tir, 20 Aug 92;  |P xMiddle, 22 Aug 92; and Atlantia, 23 Aug 92. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LOIs should be  |Lin my hands by 15 Nov 92.   xThe December meeting will be held on Sunday, 20 December 1992, and will consider the following Letters of  xoIntent: Meridies, 24 Aug 92; Atenveldt, 24 Aug 92; East, 4 Sept 92; East, 7 Sept 92; Middle, 11 Sept 92;  |P x!Calontir, 15 Sept 92; Trimaris, 15 Sept 92; Caid, 18 Sept 92; Atlantia, 21 Sept 92 Commentary on these LOIs  |Lshould be in my hands by 20 Nov 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 12 Dec 92.   x|The January meeting is scheduled for Sunday, 24 Jan 93; as it looks to be a very large meeting, it may have to be  x@extended into February. We'll see. The following Letters of Intent have been received for that meeting: West,  x14 Sept 92; Outlands, 15 Sept 92; West, 22 Sept 92; An Tir, 25 Sept 92; Ansteorra, 28 Sept 92; Atenveldt, 30 Sept  x_92; West, 12 Oct 92; Middle, 16 Oct 92; Atlantia, 18 Oct 92; Calontir, 20 Oct 92; Caid, 20 Oct 92; Atenveldt,  |PH x]20 Oct 92; Meridies, 20 Oct 92; Caid, 21 Oct 92; East, 23 Oct 92; and An Tir, 23 Oct 92. Commentary on these  |L LOIs should be in my hands by 25 Dec 92; responses and rebuttals to that commentary, by 16 Jan 93.   xFor the meetings after January, the scheduling for LOIs and LOCs will change dramatically. When I took on the  xLaurel office, I was keenly aware of the need for timeliness: sending out LOIs reasonably soon after their putative  x@dates; sending out LOCs in time for people (including Laurel) to read and respond to them. I thus attempted my  xexperiment of a prepublished schedule of deadlines, granting at least 60 days for commenters to critique submissions and 90 days for Laurel to prepare those submissions for his meeting. After six months of enforcing a deadline schedule, I've learned two lessons:   Xx(1) Laurel and his staff need every one of those 90 days to prepare submissions for the meeting. The   oexperience of the last few months have proven that to me beyond argument. More time would be nice,  |Pt)but less time is impossible. We've got  to have at least 90 days.(# "+...XX)"   Xx(2) Many within the College couldn't work with the deadline schedule. This includes submissions heralds   Band commenters, from across the Known World. Some, who depended on others for distributing their   letters, couldn't synchronize mailings every month; some had local SCA calendars that interfered with the   oschedule mandated by my deadlines; and some, I'm sorry to say, couldn't keep to a schedule even when it was published monthly and right under their noses.(#  xMost of those who objected to the deadline schedule stated that, rather than maintain it, they'd sooner go to a four xmonth commentary cycle. I confess I'd breathe easier with a bit more time, too. Therefore, starting with  xNovember LOIs, we'll go back to a modified version of our old procedure: if an LOI is received by the end of  xNovember, then its commentary must be received by the end of January (2 months for commentary); rebuttals must be received by the end of February (1 month for rebuttal); and it will be processed at the Laurel meeting in March.  xI must still insist on judging letters by their receipt date, not their postmark. In preparing this cover letter, I  x1checked all the envelopes I'd received in October and better than half had no readable postmark. The whole  |P  x1purpose of the commentary period is to give  everyone time to deal with submissions, which we can't do if we haven't gotten them.  x|The new procedure will ensure that I and my staff get sufficient time to prepare for a meeting, that commenters  xhave sufficient time to get their LOCs out but no longer have floating deadlines and unpredictable schedules. If it makes for reduced worries and less burnout among the College of Arms, I can only support it.  yOll LOTS of Roster changes TP  xLast month's cover letter, produced in haste, did not list all the new additions to the roster from the Midrealm.  xPlease add to your mailing list the new Pale Herald, Richard Morgan of Cumberland (Richard Darnell), 5840 East River Road, #202, Fridley, MN 55432; (612) 5749669. To the roster, though not the mailing list, add the following new Midrealm colleagues:   Xx* Polaris Herald, Osric of Fayrehope (Wayne Morris), P.O. Box 2548, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4B3, CANADA; (204) 4774065.(#   Xx* Fenris Herald, Alan Fairfax Aluricson (Alan Terlep), CIPO, 49 OC, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 486094401.(#   Xx* Wisconsin Regional Herald, Adrien de Troyes (Chris Olson), 405 N. Sherman Ave., Madison, WI 53704; (608) 2496382.(#   Xx* Escutcheon Herald, Balian de Brionne (Roger Jordan), 846 S. State St., #150, Davison, MI 48423; (313) 6588009.(#  x]Finally, please remove from the roster the Calygreyhound Herald, Brenainn O'Murchadha de Ros Comain, and the Shield Herald, Johannes von Pelskneipe.  xBThe Treblerose Herald of the East, Arval Benicoeur, has asked to be removed from the mailing list; his  x|commitments do not leave him time for regular commentary. He asks, however, that letters dealing with Rulesrelated issues be sent to him; I leave that to your individual discretion.  xPlease add to the mailing list the Schwartzdrachen Herald of Drachenwald, Adelaide de Beaumont. Also add, for  xthe East Kingdom, Corwin of Darkwater (Doug Brainard), 45 Southwind Way, Rochester, NY 14624; (716) 5944811. He will be doing the East's external Letters of Intent, so needs to be on the mailing list.  x0Please add to the roster, though not the mailing list, another staff herald for the East: Eric Brehattin (Eric Stoever), 149 Jeffords Road, Rush, NY 14543; (716) 5331077.  x|The Lambent Herald of Meridies, Aeruin ni hEarin O'Chonemara, is taking a sabbatical from the College to be  x!Crown Princess of Meridies. Her successor for now is Johannes the Black of the Athanor (Brad Gurganus), 1554 Church St., Mobile, AL 36604; (205) 4789385. Please add him to your mailing lists.  xThe Crescent Principal Herald of Caid, Rouland Carre, has a new address: 6078 Datura Ave., 29 Palms, CA 92277; (619) 3676756."*.,,)"Ԍ x@ԙThe Stellanordica Herald of Oertha, Flanna Dunwalton, is interested in commenting. As new commenters are always welcome, please add her to the mailing list.  xThe Crux Australis Herald of Lochac, Decion ap Dyfrwr Trefriw, has a new address: P.O. Box 182, Surrey Hills, VIC 3127, AUSTRALIA; phone 6138082567.  xPlease remove from your rosters the Notere Herald of the West, Alison von Markheim. She has opted, in the vernacular phrase, to Get Away From It All for awhile.  x!The Asterisk Herald of Ansteorra, Diarmuid mac Ruis, is likewise taking a few months' sabbatical. Please remove him from the mailing list, though not the roster.  xFinally, please remove from your rosters the Inlands Regional Herald of An Tir, Gripire Raven's Riddle. His  x|successor is David of Moffat (David Hunter), 716 E. Dennis, #96, Tumwater, WA 98501; (206) 9431021. Also  xadd to the roster the new North Regional Herald of An Tir, Frederick von Zwickau (Kevin Zwick), 4741 Victoria Drive, Vancouver, BC V5N 4P2, CANADA; (604) 8744660. Neither will be commenting at this time.  x~An updated roster is included with this LoAR. Please review it carefully for misspellings, omissions, and miscellaneous errata.  yOF A reminder about archive copies  xPhTP  xStarting with the October meeting, I should be receiving two copies of each armory submission form: one for the  xmLaurel files, and one for the archives. The archive copy should be either a fullcolor copy, identical to the one for  xthe Laurel files (the preferred form), or else an uncolored line drawing. By now, the Kingdom Colleges have had  x1sufficient leadtime; they should no longer need to rely on Xeroxes of color copies (the least desirable form, and virtually useless for checking visual conflict).  x"Sadly, some submissions have been received that didn't include an archive copy at all. Submissions without the  xrequisite paperwork be it name form, documentation, or archive copy are subject to return, purely for that  xreason (Administrative Handbook, pp.3, 6, 8). I hope archive copies will be included in every submission from now on, so I won't be forced to that severe measure.  yOD Fretty TP  zPX x1One of this month's submissions required a ruling on the status of fretty: should we consider it a field treatment,  zP" xor a charge group? If a charge group, was it a semy, or an artistic variation of the fret, or a single charge in its own right?  zP| xPFor many years, fretty was considered a field treatment (v. the 1986 Glossary of Terms). Mistress Alisoun  zPF x3specifically overturned this in the LoAR of 25 Feb 90, redefining fretty as "a 'semy of frets' and as such  xcontribut[ing] difference. ...Period treatises make it clear that fretty was seen as placed upon the field in the same  xway that ... other charges semy were strewn. ...Unlike 'normal' field treatments, but like secondary charges, a 'fretty' can itself be charged." Unfortunately, no period sources were cited.  zP0# x{Master Da'ud, on the basis of further research, redefined fretty as an artistic variation of a fret: "Evidence has been  xpresented that 'a fret' and 'fretty' were considered interchangeable in period, so no difference can be granted  x1between them." [LoAR of July 90] However, some of his subsequent decisions (e.g. Miriel d'Estoile, LoAR of  zP% xJune 92, p.20) reverted to previous definitions. Clearly, fretty lends itself to many interpretations, and we need to select one and stick to it henceforth.  pݒ "'.,,&"  zP x pݒ I don't believe that fretty is a field treatment. Lord Crescent has suggested that the very concept of "field  x?treatments" is a Society invention. I'm not prepared to endorse that suggestion: Siebmacher, 1605, gives examples  zP xof both masoning and papellony, and the former seems to be considered part of the field, akin to diapering. But  zP\ xeven stipulating the existence of field treatments, fretty doesn't seem to be part of the field. The examples of fretty  zP& x!with tertiaries e.g. Hemeldene, c.1308, Argent, fretty gules semydelys Or strongly suggests that the fretwork is a charge group.  zP xShould we consider fretty a semy, then? It's tempting to so define it; like other semys, it would then be the primary  x!charge group when alone on the field, but would demote to a secondary charge group when an overall charge was  zP xOadded. If fretty were a semy, though, the next question would be, "Semy of what?" It could only be considered  x]"semy of bendlets and scarpes", an interpretation supported by period heraldic tracts: the Argentaye Tract, c.1485,  zP xdescribes fretty as "cotises set and counterset in the manner of a bend". But bendlets, as ordinaries, remain  zPn  x|primary charges even when surmounted by overall charges: Just as Gules, six bendlets Or, overall a lion argent  zP8  xconflicts under our Rules with Gules, six bendlets Or, so would Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced  zP  x@Or, overall a lion argent conflict with Gules, three bendlets and three scarpes interlaced Or. If we define fretty to be "an unnumbered group of bendlets", then the fretty cannot behave like a regular semy.  zP\  x|I am forced to conclude that fretty is an artistic variant of the fret, and therefore a single charge. Partially, this is  xfrom the evidence of heraldic tracts: most of those I consulted did not (as the Argentaye Tract did) give a verbal  zP xdescription of fretty, but rather defined it by illustration and in so doing, drew no substantive distinction between  zP xwhat we would call "fretty" and "a fret". Legh, 1562, blazons both renderings as a frett; Bossewell, 1572, and  zP xGuillim, 1610, follow Legh's lead on this. Bara, 1581, does the reverse, blazoning as frett) what we would call  xPL"a fret".  zP xBetter evidence is found in the actual display of armory using fretty/a fret. Nearly every individual bearing arms  zP xwith a fret on one roll may be found bearing the same arms fretty on another roll: e.g. John Maltravers, late 13th  zPp x1Century, who bore Sable fretty Or on the St.George's Roll and Sable, a fret Or on the Parliamentary Roll. The  zP: xequivalence held true through Tudor times: the FitzWilliam Roll, c.1530, gives the arms of Theobald Verdon (Or,  zP xa fret gules) as Or fretty gules. The equivalence even held true in the presence of other charges on the field: e.g.  zP xthe arms of Amery St. Armand were seen both as Or fretty and on a chief sable three bezants and Or, a fret and  zP x0on a chief sable three bezants, and the arms of Despencer were seen both as Quarterly argent and gules fretty Or,  zPb x@a bendlet sable and Quarterly argent and gules, a bendlet sable between two frets Or. The latter example was,  xP, xagain, valid through Tudor times. (Sources: Dictionary of British Arms, vol.I, pp.338340; AngloNorman  xP xOArmory II, pp.454460; and see also the visual examples in Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry, under the names of Maltravers, Harington/Haverington, and Belhuse/Bellewe.)  zPL x]The main reason that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider  zP xfretty, but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall charges, by definition, can never be primary  xcharges, such conflicts will continue to exist. Such considerations cannot change the evidence, however; the  zP xmajority of the evidence shows fretty and a fret to be interchangeable charges, artistic variations of one another, and we shall henceforth so treat them.  yO!  A Plea for Conflict Checkers TP  x{A couple of this month's returns, against SCA registrations, weren't mentioned in the commentary; they were found  x^by Laurel and his staff, in one case as the (almostregistered) submission was being filed. I might have dismissed  xthis as the sort of accident that could happen anytime except that it's been happening more and more frequently,  xjust in the last few months. I want to urge all commenters to try to include comments on conflict, as much as they are able.  x?I know that conflictchecking is unglamorous, tedious and tiresome. Borderline conflict calls generate controversy;  xmdedicated conflictcheckers get labelled, disparagingly, as "conflictmongers". It's hard work. It's also one of the  xmost important functions of the commenting College. Protection against conflict is one of the services we provide our submitters; it can't be done without the combined effort of all our commenters.  pݒ "*+.,,)"  xN pݒ No one expects commenters to burn themselves out checking for conflict; balance the sources you check, and your  x2thoroughness, against the time and resources available to you. But do bear in mind that conflict checking is important; and I shan't decry anyone's best efforts.  yO b -pݒ  yOb-Concerning Tinctureless Badges TP  xA couple of this month's returns (Rosario di Palermo, Thorvald Redhair) involved counting difference against  xtinctureless badges: badges with no defined coloration, either of the background or of the charges. Such badges  xare occasionally found in mundane armory (the Stafford knot being the classic example), and for a short while they  x!were registered in the Society as well. For many years the College assumed that, because tinctureless badges had  |P x1no defined tinctures, they could be displayed in any  tinctures including party tinctures. As the 1982 Rules for  xSubmission put it (Rule XII.8): "A fieldless badge without tinctures specified for its charges is even harder to  xregister, as both field and tincture of charges are unavailable for obtaining the necessary points of difference." The  x@"point of difference" for tincture was defined in Rules XIV.1 and 2 as "The tinctures and/or the partitions of the field" [XIV.1] or "charges" [XIV.2].  xAEven after we stopped registering tinctureless badges, the principle was retained (for fieldless badges) that  xunspecified coloration was granted no difference against party tinctures: "Since a fieldless badge may legitimately  xbe displayed on a divided field, the field contributes no difference." [BoE, 20 Oct 85, p.22] The current Rules  xfor Submission state (Rule X.4.d) that "Tinctureless armory may not count difference for tincture of charges"; and  xthe same Rule defines "the tincture or division of any group of charges" as the same type of change, with at most  zPl x1 CD for all changes (coloration and division) to a single group. Lines of division are considered part of the  xtincture of a charge, as of a field; so tinctureless badges could not count difference for adding or removing lines of division on a charge.  x]Master Da'ud altered this policy somewhat, in his LoAR of Feb 92, p.10. SCA tinctureless badges would be treated  x@as before; but mundane tinctureless badges would now be granted difference for lines of division on the charge.  x"The assumption (until proven otherwise) is that mundane badges were displayed only in solid tinctures (including the furs). It is therefore reasonable that the addition of a line of division should count for difference."  x^Evidence on the period display of tinctureless badges is hard to come by under the best of circumstances. Most  xperiod badges had a defined tincture (the black bull of Clarence, the red rose of Lancaster, the white swan of  xP x!Bohun); many of the badges blazoned without tinctures in FoxDavies' Heraldic Badges testify to FoxDavies' lack  zP xof knowledge, not the tincturelessness of those badges. Once a truly tinctureless badge is identified, sufficient  x2period examples of its display must then be found to give a good indication of the limits to that display. Even combining the Laurel library with my own personal library, such examples are extremely limited.  x|I have nonetheless managed to find instances of tinctureless armory displayed in divided tinctures. The badge of  zP x{the Lords de la Warre is A crampet (that is, the metal ferrule at the end of a scabbard), commemorating the capture  xP xof the French king at Poictiers. My edition of Legh's Accidence of Armory, 1576, was originally owned by John,  xLord de la Warre; he may have been one of Legh's patrons, for the de la Warre achievement and badges are  zP  xprominently mentioned in the book. Legh gives the de la Warre badge as A crampet, and his illustration of it is  zP  xcolored Or. The frontispiece of the book, personalized by the original owner, likewise shows the de la Warre  zP! xachievement and badges and the crampet is Party azure and argent. The same badge, tinctureless by definition, was borne either as solid metal or party metal and color.  pݒ "$.,, #"  x pݒ This usage is corroborated by examples of tinctured badges whose charges were given a line of division when  zP xdepicted in a tinctureless medium. The seal of William Innes, c.1295, showed his badge of A star azure with a  zP xgyronny line of division. The seal of Philip II of France, c.1200, showed his badge of A fleurdelys Or with a per x^pale line of division. The usage may be seen at the end of period as well, with devices: the argent fess of Austria  zP$ x_depicted Per pale, the gules cross of the Archdiocese of Trier depicted Gyronny, and the gules saltire of the  zP xmEarldom of Lennox also depicted Gyronny. There's even a case (Sir Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter) where a  |P xdevice that  should have been party was depicted in the tinctureless medium without the line of division. Plainly,  xwhen rendering a charge in a tinctureless medium, any interior lines of division must have been considered artistic  xPL x#license and therefore worth no difference. (An excellent collection of seals may be found in Siegelkunde  xP x("Sigillography"), by Wilhelm Ewald, 1914. Other sources for the above examples are Boutell's English Heraldry,  xP x1902; von Volborth's Art of Heraldry, 1987; Eve's Decorative Heraldry, 1908; and St.JohnHope's Heraldry for  xPCraftsmen and Designers, 1929.)  xm!pݒ  xm!Having different standards of conflict for SCA and mundane badges is awkward, to put it mildly. With evidence  zP  xin hand that period tinctureless badges were depicted with party charges, I have decided to simplify the Rules and  xreturn to our previous policy. Henceforth, all tinctureless badges receive a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness),  xand the second necessary CD must come from some category of difference that doesn't involve tincture. As lines  xof division and partition are included as part of the tincture of a charge, per Rule X.4.d, they will not count for difference against tinctureless badges.  xThere've been some complaints about this ruling in the commentary, even before it was made and certainly before  xthe complainers had heard the evidence. Apparently, there's a strong perception that the lines of a party charge  xare "structural", integral to the design; they are shown in an uncolored outline drawing of the badge; they separate  x2tincture within the charge in the same way the charge's edge separates its tincture from the field's. By this  zP xinterpretation, the charge's division should count for difference, even against a tinctureless badge. There's an  x"equally valid perception, however, that a charge's division is simply part and parcel of its tincture; that between  zP` x?a crescent gules and a crescent per pale Or and argent is one change, not two, and that the division is a direct result  xof the choice of coloration; and that interior lines can be added at whim, and should not therefore count for  xdifference. The examples cited above, and the Rules, both support the latter perception. Pending further research  x"on this topic, that's the interpretation we'll follow. Against tinctureless armory, we will not count difference for lines of division either of the field, or of the charges.  yO Let this be a lesson to all of you...... TP  zP xOne of the names considered on the LoAR of Aug 92 (Gwyneth Rhiannon of the Sea) was altered by me to Gwyneth  zPl x|of the Sea, on the grounds that Rhiannon was the Welsh goddess of the sea, and the use of that name with 'of the  xsea' was excessive. Lady Harpy has questioned my statement that Rhiannon was the Welsh sea goddess. Horse goddess, yes; but not a sea goddess.  xAnd yet I was sure I remembered that Rhiannon was a sea goddess. In the past, we'd returned armory with seamotifs in conjunction with that name..............hadn't we?  |P  x{As it turns out, we'd returned armory with seahorses  in conjunction with Rhiannon. It was the use of horses with  xthe name of a horse goddess, not the use of seamonsters with the name of a sea goddess, that was the grounds for return. (LoAR of Oct 91, p.16) I was wrong, egregiously wrong.  |P $ xLearn from my mistake, friends. Don't trust your memories alone; if you have a reason for a return, look it up.  |L$Cite the source.   xP% And if Gwyneth of the Sea wishes to appeal the return of her original name, she has my blessing.  pݒ ".'.,,&"  pݒ   yO Good Exchanges, and Bad Exchanges TP  x0One of the more stimulating benefits of College correspondence is reading the giveandtake between commenting  xNheralds. Some of these exchanges are educational: the ongoing discussion on Irish patronymics, for instance. They  x|form the basis for future decisions, are a vital part of the College's business and they're fascinating in their own right.  x!Other exchanges are more amusing: the Great Date Debate, for instance. (For the record, the Laurel Office is so  x^delighted to get dates on the letters it receives, that we don't care exactly what format those dates use ... so long  xas it's interpretable in the Gregorian calendar. We're smart enough to deduce that a letter dated "8/4/92" and received in late August was written 4 August, not 8 April.)  xBut some recent exchanges have been neither amusing nor of benefit to the College. They've dealt with  xpersonalities rather than heraldry, and they leave the reader with a foul taste in the mouth and little respect for  x1heralds. At this point, I don't much care "who started it"; after acrimony has continued long enough, those who perpetuate it are as guilty as those who began it.  |P x-pݒ  |P x-I suppose I can't expect four dozen people to all be bosom friends, but I can and do  expect the College's  x2correspondence to be polite, civil, helpful, and snideless. "Loaded" adjectives needn't be used, since neutral  xsubstitutes exist; spelling and grammar need critiquing only in a submitted name and blazon; and the supposed  xdeficiencies of another herald (or a submitter, for that matter) are not subjects for public discussion. When anyone  xin the College of Arms has a beef with someone, the proper forum for voicing it is private: a private letter, or a  x1phone call, or a meeting facetoface. But, if I may mix metaphors, we will not wash our dirty linen in the public correspondence of the College of Arms.  xFrom now on, we're all going to make a better effort at civil behaviour, as befits gentlepersons. And if there's one  |P x?more outbreak of spiteful, meanspirited, personal remarks as defined by me  then its author had better prepare a letter of resignation from the College to accompany it. I remain, x` `  hh@hppGently, nicely and kindly yours, x` `  hh@hppBruce Draconarius of Mistholme,  xPx` `  hh@hppLaurel King of Arms.#Xx P[hXP#