Unto the members of the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive does Shayk Da'ud ibn Auda, Laurel King of Arms, send Greetings!

The August Laurel meeting was held on for Saturday, August 13, 1994, and considered the following letters of intent: Drachenwald (4/10), West (4/11), East (4/12), Calontir (4/16), An Tir (4/20), Outlands (4/20), Atlantia (4/21), Trimaris (4/25), Meridies (4/26), and Caid (4/27).

The September Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, September 10, 1994, to consider the following Letters of Intent: Atenveldt (3/31, mailed 5/4), East (5/3), Middle (5/12), West (5/20), Outlands (5/20), Caid (5/21), Calontir (5/21), Atlantia (5/22), Drachenwald (5/24), An Tir (5/25), Ansteorra (5/25), and Atenveldt (5/25). Original commentary on these LoIs should have been in the College's hands no later than July 31, 1994. Responses and rebuttals to commentary should have been in the College's hands no later than August 31, 1994.

The October Laurel meeting is scheduled for Saturday, October 8, 1994 [please note the new date], to consider the following letters of intent: West (6/8), Calontir (6/12), Meridies (6/15), Caid (6/16), Middle (6/16), An Tir (6/19), Atlantia (6/20), Trimaris (6/20), Outlands (6/20), East (6/27), and Drachenwald (6/27). Original commentary on these LoIs should be in the College's hands no later than August 31, 1994. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than September 30, 1994.

The November Laurel meeting is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, November 15, 1994, to consider the following letters of intent: Middle (7/13), Atlantia (7/17), Calontir (7/18), West (7/19), An Tir (7/21), East (7/22), Caid (7/23), and Meridies (7/25). Original commentary on these LoIs should be in the College's hands no later than September 30, 1994. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than October 31, 1994.

Not all Letters of Intent may be considered when they are originally scheduled on this Cover Letter. Date of mailing of the LoI, date of receipt of the Laurel packet, or other factors may delay consideration of certain Letters of Intent.

ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS

As of September 1, the Brigantia Principal Herald for the East Kingdom is the former Treblerose Herald, Tomás de Castellon de la Plana (Thomas Zadlo), 534 North Broad Street, Apt. 2, Lansdale, PA 19446; (215) 362-1808. Please retain Meistari Fridrikr, now "retired" as Brigantia, on your mailing lists as Langstrand Herald.

As of September 17, the Crescent Principal Herald of Caid will be the former Dolphin Herald, Catrin ferch Daffydd (Angela Martin), 59015 Sunway Drive, Yucca Valley, CA 92284; (619) 365-7321. Please add her to your mailing lists. She asks that you retain the former Crescent, Rouland Carre, on your mailing lists as a commenter.

The address for Trillium Herald was missing his apartment number. His full address is: Brand Thorwaldson (Blair Wetlaufer), 1712 Main Street West #310, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 1G7, CANADA; (905) 523-1660 [Not on Mailing List]

Some of the numbers became transposed in the P.O. Box of Pennon Herald. His correct mailing address is: Godfrey of Huntingdon (Robert Fletcher), P.O. Box 81797, Lafayette, LA 70598-1797

The College has a new Heralds Ombudsman on the Board of Directors. She is Lee Forgue (Mistress Eilis O'Boirne), 2322 Russell Street, Berkeley, CA 94705. She asks that you not put her on the mailing list, as she is already getting and reading the commentary as Brachet staff.

The address of Vesper Herald (West) dropped a word. It should be: 877 San Lucas Avenue.

Targe Herald (Middle) has a new telephone number. It is: (708) 325-5367

SOURCES AND RESOURCES

Enclosed is a copy of the most recent price list from Free Trumpet Press West, including Update 14 to the A&O. Please feel free to copy and distribute, as well as to use yourself.

ROSES AND SNOWFLAKES REVISITED

There was very little commentary on the issue of snowflakes, and only a small portion of that was in favor of retaining snowflakes as charges acceptable for registration in armory in the SCA. As a consequence, we will cease registering snowflakes in the future. (As always, people who already have registered snowflakes may apply the grandfather clause to future submissions.) If someone desires a snowflake, please try to steer them to an escarbuncle.

The commentary on roses was more voluminous, and more evenly divided. Some felt that since we receive so many of them, it must mean that our submitters really want them. Others felt that this demand was more a lack of education than real desire, and have been able to convince submitters to switch to a heraldic rose. Still others felt that part of the demand for garden roses stemmed (if you will pardon the pun) from the mistaken belief among submitters that heraldic roses cannot be slipped and leaved. There was some additional discussion that garden roses were known in period, and that some of them were similar to the post-period tea roses (complete with photocopies) that we are most familiar with. (It is Laurel's continued belief, based on the emblazons, that what we are receiving from our submitters are, indeed, post-period tea roses and not period garden roses.) It was also suggested that the real issue is not whether garden roses were known in period, but whether they are too naturalistic to be registered, per RfS VIII.4.c. I would like your thoughts on each of these points.

Additionally, a compromise position was suggest by Baron Bruce. To quote from his commentary on the issue:

Continue to register garden roses, but don't blazon them as such; simply blazon them roses. And then make it clear that, while submitters are free to render the term rose as a garden rose, they are equally free to draw it in the encouraged heraldic style. Either form is correct; the garden variety may not be insisted upon; and if a given submitter can't accept the fact that her rose (submitted as a garden rose) may be drawn by some artists as an heraldic rose, then she'd be better off submitting some other flora.

I would like your opinions on this suggestion, as well. As a consequence, the final decision regarding whether or not to continue the registration of garden roses is pended until the December Laurel meeting.

BANNING MORE STUFF (or, Now Here's Your Chance If You Really Want It)

A number of commenters have stated over the past several of months that the SCA has learned a lot since its early days, and it may be time now to put away some of the "mistakes" we have heretofore continued to register. So I put it to you all now -- Should we discontinue the registration of "SCA-compatible" names that were not used by humans in period; specifically, Rhiannon, Cerridwen, and Rhonwen (along with any others similarly situated)?

1996 KWHS REVISITED

It was pointed out to Laurel in relation to the call for bids to hose the 1996 Known World Heraldic Symposium that the Thirty Year Celebration is being held in early June in 1996 in British Columbia. Thus, the College needs to decide what we want to do with the KWHS for that year before many people start making bids to host it. We have, it seems to me, three basic choices:

1. To hold the KWHS at the Thirty Year Celebration

2. To hold the KWHS as we usually do, at a separate time and place from the Thirty Year Celebration.

3. To go to the Thirty Year Celebration instead of holding the KWHS in 1996.

I would like you opinions on these options before any groups get too far into planning a bid for the 1996 KWHS.

THE MODEST PROPOSAL REVISITED (or, Christmas Is Coming)

I find myself under increasing pressure, mostly from submitters (especially those who have had their armory submissions returned for conflict with non-SCA armory), to get the Modest Proposal "on line and operational" (to use my own phraseology). Now that the initial proposed list is distributed and commentary being received on it, I would like to set a goal date of January 1, 1995 as the time for implementation of the base list of protected non-SCA armory. I do not expect that this list will be complete at that time (indeed, I don't see it as "complete" ever, just as the Rules are not "complete" but subject to revision and improvement), but I believe that sufficient time exists before that date to allow for two or even three rounds of commentary on the various proposed cuts and additions to the initial proposed list to allow us to have a firm set of armory which we all believe we should protect. If there are those who disagree that we can have such a list activated by January 1, I will be most happy to listen to the reasons why they do not believe so.

Having heard no serious objections to the proposed methods for proposing and adding additional armory to the base list, it seems that the most reasonable mechanisms by which additional non-SCA armory may be added are these:

1. A "letter of intent to protect", similar to an LoI but separate, giving the name of the bearer of the proposed armory, the blazon, and the reasons why it should be considered important enough for us to protect. Such letters of intent to protect would be commented upon and considered just as any other LoI (though, of course, no submission fees would be charged). Proposed items would either be "registered" and added to the SCA A&O or "returned" based on the commentary, and would appear in a separate section in the LoARs. (It should be equally possible to remove items from the protected list the same way, if the College should feel that one or another piece of non-SCA armory does not need "protection".)

2. If someone finds a "conflict" for a submission of SCA armory with a piece of non-SCA armory that they believe is important enough to protect, their commentary on that SCA submission should cite the potential conflict by name, blazon and source, and the reasons they believe it should be considered important enough for us to protect. The decision on the SCA submission will be pended for a month or two to allow commentary on the possible conflict, and then either the SCA submission or the non-SCA armory will be "registered" and added to the A&O.

MISCELLANY (or, Heraldry Does Have Its Uses)

"Still, heraldry has its place.... We once caught a guy who had stolen some armor in another Kingdom about a year before. He wore it to Border Raids and a former Calontir fighter recognized it."

Posted on CompuServe's Living History Forum by Sonny Scott, July 19, 1994.

Until next month, I remain, as ever,

Your faithful servant,

Da'ud ibn Auda

Laurel King of Arms