The November Laurel meeting was held on Saturday, November 34 December 4, 1993 (no, nobody said that this transition would be entirely smooth) and considered the following Letters of Intent: Caid (5/14), Outlands (5/31), Caid (6/29), Ansteorra (7/5), An Tir (7/10), West (7/12), Middle (7/15), Calontir (7/18), Atlantia (7/19), Atenveldt (7/21), Meridies (7/28).

The December Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, December 18, 1993, and is to consider the following letters of intent: Ansteorra (7/29), Outlands, (8/10), West (8/16), Calontir (8/22), Atenveldt (8/24), An Tir (8/24), Middle (8/25), East (8/25), Ansteorra (8/25), and Atlantia (8/29). Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LoIs should have been in the College's hands by November 30, 1993.

The January Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, January 15, 1994, and is scheduled to consider the following letters of intent: An Tir (9/12), Calontir (9/20), Outlands (9/20), Atlantia (9/20), West (9/20), Trimaris (9/20), East (9/22), Middle (9/26), and Ansteorra (9/29). Commentary on these LoIs should have been in the College's hands by November 30, 1993. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than December 31, 1993.

The February Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 12, 1994, and is scheduled to consider the following letters of intent: Caid (7/27), Caid (8/25), Meridies (9/27, mailed 10/8), Atenveldt (9/30, mailed 10/7), Drachenwald (9/30), An Tir (10/16), Middle (10/17), Caid (10/19), East (10/20), Outlands (10/20), Ansteorra (10/20), Atlantia (10/23), Calontir (10/24), and West (10/25). Commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than December 31, 1993. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LoIs must be in College's hands no later than January 31, 1994.

The March Laurel meeting is scheduled to consider the following Letters of Intent: Meridies (10/25, mailed 11/5), East (11/10), Middle (11/11), Atlantia (11/14), West (11/15), Outlands (11/20), An Tir (11/21), Calontir (11/21), Ansteorra (11/24), Trimaris (11/25), Meridies (11/27) and Atenveldt (11/27). Commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than January 31, 1994. Responses and rebuttals to commentary on these LoIs must be in College's hands no later than February 28, 1994.

Not all Letters of Intent may be considered when they are scheduled on this Cover Letter. Dates of mailing of the LoI and date of receipt of the Laurel packet may delay consideration of certain Letters of Intent.

ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS

The new Heralds Ombudsman on the Board of Directors, A.J. Riviezzo (Master Giovanni di Sienna), has asked that he not be retained on the mailing list (though he will remain on the Roster).

Please change the title of Gerald of Ispley (Gerald Hubbell) from Hawk (or Eyass) Herald to Gold Falcon Principal Herald.

Please remove the former Gold Falcon Principal Herald, Daibhaid Orcheard (David Bailey) from the Roster.

COMMENTARY (or, Whether 'Tis Nobler in the Mind to Suffer the Cutting and Pasting of Outrageous Commentary)

I would like to thank all of those who are sending Laurel their commentary on diskette. I cannot tell you how much time it saves to be able to do all the cut and paste work on the computer as opposed to physically cutting and pasting pieces of paper.

If any of you are not currently sending your commentary on diskette but have the capability and are interested in doing so, the Laurel office, while doing most of its work in WordPerfect 5.1, can read from (and write LoARs back onto) either 3.5" or 5.25" diskettes in a variety of word processing packages (or, of course, ASCII) in DOS. I even have a conversion program which will let me read from or write to Macintosh diskettes. And everyone who sends their commentary (and/or LoIs) on diskette get their diskette back with the next LoAR and Cover Letter on it. If you have any other questions about this medium for getting your comments to Laurel, please ask me.

VERT TRIMOUNTS ON AZURE FIELDS (or, When Does VIII.2.b.i. Not Apply?)

Probably the biggest single issue considered at this Laurel meeting was the appeal of Ördög Magyar Béla, Azure, a demi-wolf contourny argent, issuant from a trimount vert, holding in its mouth a vol Or. While this usage clearly violates the strictures of RfS VIII.2.b.i. ("The field must have good contrast with every charge placed directly on it and with charged placed overall."), as with its earlier submission, it "engendered no little discussion" and was the most discussed issue in the commentary (four and a half pages in 10 point type, in addition to the evidence submitted in the appeal itself).

The evidence submitted with this appeal goes beyond the bounds of "regional style". Of the forty-eight pieces of armory cited to support this submission, three were from Austria, one from England, twenty-five from the Holy Roman Empire, twelve from Hungary, five from Italy, and two from Portugal. Clearly, then, we are discussing a practice which surpasses the bounds of a single "regional" style.

It was noted that the Rule of Contrast, as codified in VIII.2.b. of the Rules for Submissions, is one of our most inviolate, and that exceptions should only be made to it with due and extremely careful consideration. On the other hand, it is equally true that the Rule of Contrast is our rule, and that just as we chose to adopt it we are equally free to chose to allow exceptions to it, under circumstances of our choosing.

In this case, I believe that the evidence presented adequately demonstrates through multiple period examples that vert trimounts were used on azure fields across Europe. As a consequence, and as you will note in the attached LoAR, we are registering the device proposal of Ördög Magyar Béla.

The next question, of course, is that having now made one exception to the Rule of Contrast, what are the standards for future possible exceptions? I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the future.

The documentation must consist of multiple examples, not two or three but at least a dozen, and not limited to a single heraldic regime, but be from across Europe. The examples must be of the exact form used in the submission: if the submitter wants a green trimount on blue, that's what must be documented -- and that documentation cannot then be used as an argument for, say, a green fess on blue. The examples must be of comparable simplicity and style as the submission. And finally, even if the evidence is accepted, it only applies to the item at hand.

DOCUMENTATION (or, Hanks & Hodges = Yonge = Dunkling & Gosling = Kolatch = The New Age Baby Name Book)

I was distressed to see the number of names submissions whose sole documentation consisted of the bald assertion that "[X] is found in Hanks & Hodges [Surnames/Given Names] on page [x]". Except in a few cases, there were not even any accompanying photocopies of the appropriate pages. This situation is not acceptable. While Hanks and Hodges' works may be a great place to start in searching for name documentation, they are NOT the place to end that search. Very few of the entries have dates of any kind. There are many modern forms included in the entries. There are even, as there are in many general works of this kind, some errors, sometimes quite glaring. For all of these reasons, Hanks and Hodges' books are not acceptable as adequate documentation or support for an SCA name. They are especially not acceptable as the only documentation or support for an SCA name.

Principal Heralds: I trust that you will get the word out on this to your local heralds and to your submitters.

Submissions heralds: I trust that you will either include better support for those names submissions or return in kingdom those names submissions for additional support which have Hanks and Hodges as the sole support for either the entire name or for any name element.

In the commentary on a couple of the submissions considered this month, several commenters voiced the opinion that we should no longer allow Norse "twisty-beasts" (Jelling beasts, Norse serpents, and so on) as a design element in SCA armory, given their difficulty in blazoning, lack of standardization of form, and that they are artistic motifs only and never appeared in period armory. What is the opinion of the remainder of the members of the College? Should we continue to register Norse "twisty-beasties" or have them go the way of the piping beast, Hrassvelg monster, and bog beast?

MISCELLANY

"You Know You've Been Doing Heraldry Too Long When ..." Department

Herald looking at a tree: "Upon an oak tree proper two hearts conjoined in fess, charged respectively with the letters AH and MS and transfixed with an arrow in bend, barbed and flighted, pointing to the sinister, all surmounted in chief with the words ALBERT LOVES MYRTLE".
From The Heraldry Gazette, September 1992, p. 10