Unto the members of the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive do Dame Elsbeth Anne Roth, Laurel Queen of Arms, and Master Pietari Pentipoika, Pelican King of Arms, send greetings.
The June Laurel meeting was held Saturday, June 16, 2001, and considered the following letters of intent: Æthelmearc (January 1) (redated to February based on postmark), Æthelmearc (January 6) (redated to February based on postmark), Æthelmearc (January 10) (redated to February based on postmark), East (January 29) (redated to February based on postmark), Atenveldt (February 1), Artemisia (February 11), Middle (February 12), Drachenwald (February 18), Atlantia (February 21), Lochac (February 21), An Tir (February 27), Ealdormere (February 27), and Meridies (February 28). The Pelican meeting was held Sunday, June 9, 2001. A Laurel and Pelican road show was Sunday, June 3, 2001, at the Knowne World Heraldic Symposium in Northshield.
The July Laurel meeting was held Saturday, July 14, 2001, and Sunday, July 15, 2001 and considered the following letters of intent: Ansteorra (February 22) (redated to March based on postmark), Atenveldt (March 1), Middle (March 4), Drachenwald (March 12), Outlands (March 15), Lochac (March 18), Atlantia (March 21), Calontir (March 24), West (March 27), An Tir (March 28), Calontir (March 29), Artemisia (March 30), and Meridies (March 31). The Pelican meeting was held Sunday, July 8, 2001, and Sunday, July 15, 2001.
The August meetings are scheduled for Saturday, August 11, 2001 (both names and armory), and will consider the following letters of intent: Atenveldt (April 1), Caid (April 4), Lochac (April 8), Drachenwald (April 9), Middle (April 11), Ansteorra (April 20), West (April 20), Atlantia (April 21), An Tir (April 27), Trimaris (April 28), and Meridies (April 30). Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than July 29, 2001.
The September meetings are scheduled for Saturday, September 15, 2001 (Pelican) and Saturday, September 22, 2001 (armory), and will consider the following letters of intent: Atenveldt (May 1), Middle (May 5), Ansteorra (May 10), Caid (May 11), Drachenwald (May 14), Æthelmearc (May 15), Caid (May 15), Lochac (May 16), Atlantia (May 20), Calontir (May 25), and An Tir (May 30). Original commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than July 31, 2001. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than August 31, 2001.
The October meetings are scheduled Saturday, October 13 (names and armory), and will consider the following letters of intent: Atenveldt (June 1), Æthelmearc (June 10), Ansteorra (June 14), Artemisia (June 14), Drachenwald (June 14), Middle (June 14), Atlantia (June 16), Lochac (June 17), Outlands (June 21), Trimaris (June 28), and Meridies (June 30). Original commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than August 31, 2001. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than September 30, 2001.
The November meetings are tentatively scheduled for Saturday, November 10 (names) and Sunday, November 11 (armory) and will consider the Letters of Intent dated July 2001.
Not all letters of intent may be considered when they are originally scheduled on this cover letter. The 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, some letters of intent received may not have been scheduled because the administrative requirements (receipt of the forms packet, receipt of the necessary fees, etc.) have not yet been met.
REMINDER: Until the packet containing the paperwork is received, the letter may not be scheduled.
Last month Palimpsest proposed rules changes that have been under discussion for most of my term. I have discussed the changes with Zenobia and we both agree that there is no reason to wait to implement his changes. Therefore I now announce the following changes to the armory rules:
VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor – An augmentation of honor must be compatible with period armorial style.
An augmentation is an honor bestowed by the crown, taking the form of an addition or alteration to the honoree's device. While the right to an augmentation is bestowed by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration process. The augmentation must itself follow the armory rules; if it has the appearance of being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of armorial conflict. The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the rules in relation to the original armory. For example, Sable, on a chief argent a lion passant maintaining, in augmentation, an escutcheon gules charged with a cross throughout argent is acceptable even though it breaks RfS VIII.1.c.ii., Layer Limit. Gules, a lion argent, and in augmentation a canton argent charged with a tower Or is not acceptable, as the augmentation internally breaks RfS VIII.2., Armorial Contrast. Since an augmentation is an earned honor, it may in some cases violate RfS XI.3. Marshaling or RfS XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor. Arms in their augmented form are subject to the normal rules of conflict.
X.2. Substantially Different Charges – Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed.
These types of changes were normally seen between complete strangers in blood, and were not usually used to indicate any form of cadency. For purposes of this rule, simple armory is defined as armory that has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges.
The following examples are simple, with at most two types of charge on the field: Argent, a fess sable. Sable, three lions Or. Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent. Vair, a bordure gules. Per pale gules and argent, a fess between three lozenges counterchanged. Or, on a chevron between three clarions gules, three garbs argent. Purpure, on a pale dancetty within a bordure semy-de-lys argent, a millrind sable between two roses gules.
The following examples are all non-simple, with more than two types of charges on the field, or with one or more overall charges: Argent, a fess between two lions and a lozenge azure. Vert, a chevron between three swords, a bordure Or. Gules, a bend between two roundels argent, overall a lion Or. Per bend argent and sable, a bend gules between a tree and a cross crosslet counterchanged. Argent, a dragon sable, overall a bend gules.
Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion sable. Vert, two eagles and a maunch argent does not conflict with Vert, three lozenges argent. Azure, a fess between three cups Or does not conflict with Azure, a chevron between three cups Or. In each case the designs are simple and the type of every primary charge has been substantially changed.
Per chevron gules and argent, three oak trees counterchanged does conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, three fir trees counterchanged, because the type of charge has not been substantially changed; they both conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a fir tree counterchanged because not all of the primary charges have been substantially changed. Vert, two mullets and a clarion argent within a bordure Or conflicts with Vert, three gauntlets argent within a bordure Or because the first design is not simple, with three different types of charge on the field.
XI.4. Arms of Pretense and Augmentations of Honor – Armory that uses charges in such a way as to appear to be arms of pretense or an unearned augmentation of honor is considered presumptuous
Period and modern heraldic practice asserts a claim to land or property by surmounting an individual's usual armory with a display of armory associated with that claim. Such arms of pretense are placed on an escutcheon. Similarly, an augmentation of honor often, though not necessarily, takes the form of an independent coat placed on an escutcheon or canton. Generally, therefore, a canton or a single escutcheon may only be used if it is both uncharged and of a single tincture. For example, Argent, a fess gules surmounted by an escutcheon sable charged with a roundel argent has the appearance of being arms of pretense or an augmentation. Or, in saltire five escutcheons sable each charged with three roundels argent does not have this appearance, as it has multiple escutcheons, as so is acceptable. The exception to the restrictions of this rule is when the submitter is entitled to an augmentation as described in RfS VIII.7. Augmentations of Honor.
Some months ago, I asked the College for their opinions on whether precedent should be overturned to give significant difference between a greyhound and a wolf (and more specifically, a greyhound's head and a wolf's head). The standard of RfS X.4.e, Type Changes, is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. Evidence was presented, which none disputed, that greyhounds and wolves were both period charges. However, responses substantially opposed the change, and therefore the precedent that all canines conflict will remain in place.
However, much of the commentary focused more broadly on issues of identifiability of these and other canines. Batonvert suggested that collars were an important identifier for dogs, but Argent Snail pointed out that in various period rolls of arms one finds more dogs without collars than with. Moreover, Argent Snail pointed out that in one blazon in the Dictionary of British Arms, there was confusion as to whether a specific depiction was intended to be a dog or a wolf. Others were concerned about how we would treat the various breeds of dogs that were not known in period heraldry, particularly those that blur the distinctions between the two. These concerns, while not unimportant, are outside the scope of the issue at question.
Just as we give significant difference between, for example, falcons and swans (when in postures period for falcons and swans), while giving no difference between either and a generic bird, we could easily for canines define a few types (wolf/fox, greyhound, and talbot, for example) each of which is significantly different from one another and a residual category (everything else) which is not significantly different from any of them. Such a plan would allow for a clear precedent regarding both depictions that blurred distinctions (they could be blazoned as generic dogs) and depictions of breeds that are not one of these charges (they would be treated as generic dogs for purposes of conflict). There is, however, insufficient support in the College so no such plan will be implemented at this time.
As the incoming Laurel Clerk (read "submissions-handling grunt"), I would like to beg for electronic copies of all computer-produced Letters of Intent, Comment, Response, Correction, et cetera, preferably e-mailed to email@example.com.
The system for processing LoIs and LoCs and generating the skeleton LoAR involves running electronic copies through programs. Therefore, a paper-only letter has to be typed in or scanned. This is error-prone and slow. Further, I've noticed that almost everyone seems to be using a computer nowadays, so almost everyone can save the staff hours of work with a simple, cheap action.
I have MS Word, Corel WordPerfect, Sun StarOffice, and plain text editors. If you use a program that they can't handle, let's talk. I want to accommodate you.
If you have such computer files but e-mailing them is difficult, then please enclose a diskette with your Laurel office copy. Windows, Macintosh, and Linux formats are ideal. About three years' supply of diskettes costs some US$10 at CompUSA, so one diskette per month costs less than adding one new member of the Mailing List.
NOTA BENE: this request applies only to the text of LoIs, LoCs, and similar letters (Response, Correction, et cetera). The submission forms and their attached documentation sheets should be sent in paper only, just like before. Please, no electronic pictures, due to the storage space and download time.
NOTA BENE: The above request is a request only. (Shameless begging, yes; mandatory, no.) Also, it can apply only to computer-generated letters. I emphasize that Laurel policy has not changed: any paper-based written letters are welcome. I have seen typewritten and even handwritten LoCs. The above request certainly does not, cannot apply to them; they will be cheerfully typed in. Computer-generated paper letters will be typed or scanned also.
(Paper letters, mind you. The Laurel office regrets that it is unable to accept cuneiform tablets, runestones, tattooed cattle, &c. All such will be returned to sender, postage due.)
Send Laurel office copies of all submissions-related paper, including
to Kathleen M. O'Brien, 7323 Potters Trl, Austin, TX 78729-7777.
Send Laurel office copies of all submissions-related electronic files to firstname.lastname@example.org . This includes electronic copies of LoIs, LoCs, LoRs, &c.
Send roster changes and corrections to Lord Symond Bayard le Gris, Bruce R. Nevins, 2527 E. 3rd St., Tucson, AZ, 85716-4114, (520) 795-6000, (520) 795-0158 (fax), email@example.com. College of Arms members can also request a copy of the current roster from Symond.
For subscriptions to the paper copy of the LoAR, please contact Symond, above. The cost for an LoAR subscription is $25.00 a year. Please make all checks or money orders payable to "SCA Inc. – College of Arms." For subscriptions to the electronic copy of the LoAR, please contact Laurel at firstname.lastname@example.org. The electronic copy is available free of charge.
For all administrative matters, or for questions about whom to send to, please contact the incoming Laurel King of Arms, Master Francois la Flamme, c/o Wendel Bordelon, 15910 Val Verde Drive, Houston TX, 77083, 713-918-2947, email@example.com.
Until then, I remain
Elsbeth Anne Roth
Laurel Queen of Arms
Created at 2001-07-25T00:14:37