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 March 1995 meeting was held on Saturday, March 18, 1995, and considered the following Letters of Intent: Atenveldt (dated 10/20, but mailed 11/1), Drachenwald (undated, but mailed 11/1), Ansteorra (11/5), Middle (11/6), Caid (11/7), Atlantia (11/11), West (11/14), An Tir (11/18), East (11/20), Caid (11/21), Outlands (11/28), and Drachenwald (11/29). Original commentary on these LoIs should have been in the College's hands no later than January 31, 1995. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must have been in the College's hands no later than February 28, 1995.

The April 1995 meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 15, 1995, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: West (12/8); Middle (12/9); Atlantia (12/12); An Tir (12/16); Trimaris (12/20); and Caid (12/21). The Outlands LoI of 12/20 will be considered at a "roadshow" meeting in Ealdormere on April 22. Original commentary on these LoIs must have been in the College's hands no later than February 28, 1995. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must have been in the College's hands no later than March 31, 1995.

The May 1995 Laurel meeting is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, May 20, 1995, and will consider the following Letters of Intent: East (1/4); Meridies (1/12); An Tir (1/14); Caid (1/20); Atlantia (1/22); Drachenwald Letter of Intent to Protect (1/26); West (1/28); and Outlands (1/28). Original commentary on these LoIs must have been in the College's hands no later than March 31, 1995. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than April 30, 1995.

The June 1995 Laurel meeting is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, June 17, 1995, and will consider Letters of Intent dated February 1995 (plus two LoIs dated in January but not mailed until well into February. One LoI will. be considered at a "roadshow" meeting at the Known World Heraldic Symposium on Sunday morning, June 25. Original commentary on these LoIs be in the College's hands no later than April 30, 1995. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than May 31, 1995.

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. Additionally, not all Letters of Intent received have been scheduled because the administrative requirements (receipt of the forms packet, receipt of the necessary fees, etc.) have not yet been met.

ROSTER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS

Wouldn't you just know it? On the very same day that I mailed the February LoAR to the printer, I received not one but two letters requesting changes to the Roster and mailing list. And two days after that, two more letters with changes arrived. (I know. I know. That's what I get for trying to be efficient and get the LoARs out in a timely manner. :-) In any case, the following are changes to the Roster.

Aten asks that you make the following changes to the Roster:

Please add Golden Wing Herald, Kelwin Ratslayer (Kelly Campbell), 107 Randall, Boise, ID 83705; (208) 387-1779, to the Roster. She will not be commenting at this time and so should not be added to the mailing list.

Please remove staff herald Raymond Carder the Sea Rover from the Roster.

Star asks that you add the following to the Roster (but not the mailing list):

Asterisk Herald: Donal O'Dochartaigh (Lee Cavett), 11819 Plum Point, Houston, TX 77099; (713) 495-1617

Zodiacus Herald: Aodhan Ite an Fhithich (David H. Brummel), 2506 Gettysburg, League Sity, TX 77573-3309; (713) 332-9716

Eclipse Herald: Adelicia Gilwell (Peggy Rudin), 7135 Vinland, Dallas, TX 75277; (214) 388-8156

Nordsteorra Herald: Delphina de Tasarlara (Annette Dittmar), 9108 Salsbury Lane, Oklahoma City, OK 73132; (405) 720-8832

Twilight Herald: Kassandra nic Kraken (Connie Carroll), 4301 Bamford Drive, Austin, TX 78731-1205; (512) 346-4418

Equinox Herald: Alden Pharamond (Paul T. DeLisle), 1149 North 15th Street, Abilene, TX 79601; (915) 677-5211

Triton asks that you add the following to the Roster (but not the mailing list):

Dolmen Pursuivant: Rhiannon Ui Neill (Beverly Curry), 18 Reynolds Road, Asheville, NC 28806; (704) 253-3115; corvus2@aol.com

Most Pursuivant: Tirloch of Tallaght (Tom Bilodeau), 13456 Cobra Drive, Herndon, VA 22071; (703) 437-6271; bilodto@gdss.grumman.com

Vesper notes the change of Crux Australis Herald. Peter the Uncertain has stepped down. His successor is: Tancred Enrico di Castrogiovanni (William Fergus), P.O. Box 367, Alexandria, NSW 2015, AUSTRALIA. He will not be commenting at this time.

Vesper also asks that you make the following changes:

Add to the Roster (but not the mailing list) Baril Pursuivant, Thomas Flamanc of Kelsale (John Sawyer), 51 Joan Avenue, Ferntree Gully, VIC 3156, AUSTRALIA.

Add to the Roster and to the mailing list Pursuivant Extraordinary at Large, Maxen Dawel ap Morgan (Seth Morgan), 3825 Canterbury Drive, Redding, CA 96002; (916) 223-5405.

Two errors were noted under West Kingdom listings in the Roster. Vesper's street address should be 877 San Lucas Avenue. (She's such a saintly person, I don't know why I can't seem to keep the "San" in her address. J) And Sable Swan's name was somehow truncated. It should be Gwenhwyfaer ferch Gwilym ap Morgan o'Erryrys.

Dragon asks that you make the following changes to the Roster:

As of May 1, 1995, the new Dragon Herald will be the current Pale Herald, Richard Morgan of Cumberland.

Please remove Evergreen Herald, Green Mantle Pursuivant, and Targe Herald from the Roster.

The current Oaken Herald, Dmitrii Volkovich, is now Shield Herald. He will remain on the mailing list.

The new Fenris Herald is Lothair Glenlogan (Christopher Reschka), 53610 Chesterfield Road, Chesterfield, MI 48051; (810) 749-5571. He will not be on the mailing list.

The new Oaken Herald is Solveig Gunnadottir or Ulfey (Gail Ann Gnizak), 2569 Kendall Road, Shaker Heights, OH 44120; (216) 791-0051. She will not be on the mailing list.

The new Polaris Herald is Caradoc Llew Du ap Morgan (Ross Quinn-Davis), 4052 22nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55407; (612) 722-3875. He will not be on the mailing list.

Please add the following new herald to the Roster (but not the mailing list). Southern Oaken Regional Herald: Richard of Ditton Priors (R. Daye), 2717 Colin Avenue, Louisville, KY 40217; (502) 636-3167.

Crescent asks that you add the following to the Roster (but not to the mailing list): Silver Trumpet Pursuivant: Selene Colfox (Susan Fox-Davis), 6557 Day Street, Tujunga, CA 92042; (818) 352-1236.

Kraken Herald (Atlantia) has resigned. Please remove him from the Roster.

So many changes above (plus a couple of changes of and several additions to e-mail addresses) have been made that a new Roster is included with this mailing.

COMMENTARY AND COMMENTING

Having covered Letters of Intent and their accompanying packets two months ago, we not move to address some recent inadequacies in some Letters of Comment. From the Administrative Handbook, p. 9:

Commentary on Submissions

C. Format of Comments - Comments should be formatted in a manner allowing their convenient use by Laurel and the members of the College of Arms.

1. Letters of Comment on letters of intent:

a. Chronological Order. Comments should be arranged in chronological order by the date on the letter of intent. While the postmark date or receipt date of the letter may be mentioned in commentary, if this is relevant, only the "cover date" of the letter should be used in arranging or referring to letters of intent.

b. Submission Order and Designation. Individual submissions should be arranged in alphabetic order within the letter of intent and designated by name as well as item number. This avoids confusion if there is a typo on the numbers. Commentary on each item on a letter of intent should be readily distinguishable from commentary on any other item.

c. Commentary Across Multiple Letters. If comments on a single letter of intent are included in more than one letter of comment, this fact should be indicated at the beginning of the relevant commentary on the second (or subsequent) letter of comment. This guarantees that Laurel and other members of the College will be aware that other comments exist.

Additionally, Laurel should be receiving two copies of all Letters of Comment. LoCs mailed to Laurel must include:

A one- or two-sided copy for the files

and

a one-sided copy to be physically cut and pasted

or

an electronic copy (on diskette or sent via e-mail).

It is the responsibility of the person writing the LoC to make sure that the correct copies get to Laurel. There have sometimes been problems in tracking what copies have been received from whom, especially from some who mail their LoCs with the LoIs and other LoCs in group packets. Most such packets contain only double-sided "file" copies.

The use of an electronic copy, whether on diskette or e-mailed, is even more strongly encouraged than before because of the extra effort involved in coordinating the Laurel office and the new Pelican office, which will be in effect for commentary on LoIs dated in March 1995. I know that most commenters currently do their commentary on computer; I can think of only one commenter right now who is using a typewriter. For those who are doing commentary on computer, it should not cost any extra or make more work to save a copy to diskette and mail it with the file copy of the commentary. And as those who have been sending their commentary on diskette will be able to tell you, Laurel has been prompt in returning diskettes (with the next LoAR on them).

The Laurel office computer is able to read from and write to both PC and Macintosh diskettes, and is able to handle most word processing formats. (If you send commentary on diskette, it is helpful if the diskette is labeled with at least your SCA name and the word processing program used; it is also helpful if a Mac diskette is so labeled. [Diskettes are assumed to have a default "posture" of DOS; any other "posture" must be specifically blazoned. J])

COMMENTARY AND COMMENTING, PART II (or, A Couple of "Complex" Issues, or, "That Which We Call A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell....")

There has been an increasing number of comments in recent months to the effect that a piece of submitted armory is "too complex for a badge". I am at a bit of a loss to figure out where this opinion comes from. The Rules for Submissions in effect for five years now have a single standard regarding complexity for all armory submission. There is no such standard in the Rules as too complex "for a badge", particularly since most of the "badges" about which this comment is made have fields. Such fielded badges are not "badges" at all in the classical sense, but are rather secondary armory (or armorial ensigns, or armorial cognizances, if you will). It may be that we would not have this problem to the degree that we do if we called what we register as "badges" by some other name, but every proposal which has been made in the past (e.g., "badge" for "fieldless" badges and "ensign" for "fielded" badges), has been rejected by the College. That being the case, the term "badge" as used by the SCA College of Arms is loosely defined as including all armory which is not the arms/primary device of a submitter. Such category includes secondary arms, household arms, ensigns and, yes, badges, and all of these various types of "badges" are subject to a single standard of complexity, as expressed in RfS VIII.1.a.

Another "complexity" comment which has been appearing periodically in commentary is the inclusion of a complex line of division in a submission with the "complexity count". The "rule of thumb" included in RfS VIII.1.a. is clear: "the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in a design should not exceed eight." While it is true that a complex line of division may add some "busy-ness" to a piece of armory, it does not do so nearly to the same extent as adding different types of charges or more tinctures. As a consequence, a complex line of division should not be included in an VIII.1.a. "complexity count" when addressing an armory submission.

MORE COMMENTARY NOTES (or, "But Laurel said....")

Laurel has not consistently been reblazoning returned armory, which blazon might have been modified had the armory been registered. Thus, the blazon of a return is many times simply nothing more than a copy of the blazon in the original LoI, and should not be taken as the "official" or "final" blazon of an item in a resubmission or appeal. It has been occasionally disconcerting to see a submissions herald defend a blazon on the grounds that the specific wording being defended is what Laurel used in a prior return, when the blazon of the submission was simply copied directly from the original LoI without modification.

COMMENTARY VIA E-MAIL (or, Puttering Down the Access Road of the Information Superhighway)

There has been some discussion on the Net regarding the cost of being an active commenter in the College and ways in which those costs might be brought down. One of the most promising suggestions to date is for those commenters with access to the Internet or one of the other electronic information services (America On-Line, CompuServe, &co.) to send and receive commentary via e-mail. (This proposal would apply only to those who have and use such access. Everyone else on the mailing list would continue to receive hard copies through the regular mail, and access to the Net would not be a requirement of being on the mailing list.) A sticking point which has been noted, however, is the fact that the Internet and Internet interfaces of the private services generally will not transfer many of the "special" characters we use; e.g., é, á, ø, and so on that are used in Gaelic and some of the other languages we deal with. Below is an "equivalency chart" which I have developed which might help overcome that difficulty. Each of the "equivalents" to a special character would be enclosed in curly brackets ({}), and such characters could either be typed into the regular commentary as equivalents or converted by hand or by macro after the LoC is typed up. (I have created a WordPerfect 5.0/5.1 for DOS macro which converts the special characters listed below into the equivalents, and another which converts the equivalents into the special characters, if anyone is interested.) The person receiving the LoC could, if desired, reconvert the equivalents (e.g., {u:}) back into the special characters (in the example here, ü) before reading and/or printing out the LoC. If such a system would work, and the College can agree on standard equivalencies to each of the special characters we use, such a system could be put into place in the near future. What ever equivalencies we might use, we should be striving, as I have tried to here, for more or less "intuitive" equivalencies. Please let me know your thoughts on usefulness and applicabilityof this equivalency list.

The special characters and their proposed ASCII equivalents are:

á = {a'}

à = {'a}

â = {a^}

ä = {a:}

å = {ao}

æ = {ae}

Æ = {AE}

ç = {c,}

é = {e'}

è = {'e}

ê = {e^}

ë = {e:}

É = {E'}

í = {i'}

ì = {'i}

î = {i^}

ï = {i:}

ñ = {n~}

ó = {o'}

ò = {'o}

ô = {o^}

ö = {o:}

ø = (o/}

Ó = {O'}

Ö = {O:}

Ø = {O/}

ú = {u'}

ù = {'u}

û = {u^}

ü = {u:}

ð = {dh}

þ = {th}

MISCELLANY

"Heralds were primarily occupied with paperwork. Their job was ascertain that no two people in Europe had similar names and coats of arms. They were especially concerned with 'Points of Difference', and wars were fought over how many cherubim proper could dance on a point of difference." (The SCAtanic Verses, 1990)

Quoted by Schwarzdrachen, LoC 1/95

Until next month, I remain, as ever,

Your faithful servant,

Da'ud ibn Auda

Laurel King of Arms