Laurel February 2002 Letter of Pends and Discussion


                                   Society for Creative Anachronism
                                   College of Arms
                                   15910 Val Verde Drive
                                   Houston TX, 77083-4921
                                   713-918-2947
                                   herald&#064sca.org
             For the December 2001 meetings, printed 28 February 2001

To all the College of Arms and to all others to whom this missive
comes from Fran{c,}ois Laurel, Zenobia Wreath, and Mari Pelican,
health and good friendship.

NOTE: the November 2001 LoAR listed a "printed" date of January 31,
2002, so its issues were scheduled to be discussed at the May 2002
meetings. Due to the LoAR postmark, they are now scheduled for June
2002. ("Sauce for the goose...")

This letter contains the issues raised in the December 2001 LoAR for
CoA discussion. The text in this letter is copied verbatim from that
LoAR; it is provided here for convenience.

As with a February LoI, these issues are currently scheduled for the
Laurel meetings in June 2002. Original commentary must be in the
College's hands no later than April 30, 2002. Responses and rebuttals
to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than May 31,
2002.


1. Appeals for Names That Were Registered?  Issue.

The College has been receiving a number of appeals on names which were
registered. I'd like to open discussions about how to handle such
requests for administrative changes of registered names (rather than
returned names), I'd also like to open discussions about how to avoid
the dissatisfaction that resulted in these appeals.

In all these appeals of registered names, the names were registered
with changes from the originally submitted form. The changes were in
accordance with the directives on the forms: changes for authenticity,
or required (major or minor) changes to allow registerability. The
submitters have been unhappy with their changed names, and have sent
up appeals to restore a name closer to the originally submitted
version.

For years, our forms have given the submitter the option to allow
"major" or "minor" changes to the name to make it registerable. Such
changes are made at kingdom or Laurel level, usually without
consulting the submitter. This resulted in the occasional situation
when the submitter was not happy with the outcome of such allowed
changes. But as a general rule, the registered name had a strong
resemblance to the submitted name and the submitter was not surprised
by the registered form of the name.

With the addition of the "make my name authentic" option, there are
more cases when the name is registered in a form which looks or sounds
notably different from the submitted version, in order to comply with
the authenticity request. These changes sometimes surprise the
submitter, and thus, we are seeing more cases where the submitter does
not find the registered version of the name to be acceptable.

If the submitter is unhappy with the name that was registered, it does
nothing to encourage the use of an authentic name and does not help
the College serve submitters. To address this, I would like ideas
about how we provide a method for submitters to ask for the decision
on an accepted name to be reconsidered.

In considering the many issues raised by this question, please address
how this review process should work, what limits, if any, should
restrict the requests for review, and how we can reduce the need for
such reviews (perhaps by form changes).


2.  Palls, Shakeforks, and Couped Ordinaries.  Issue.

This month's submission for Gwenllian de Castell Coch has once again
raised the issue of ordinaries versus ordinaries couped, specifically
that of palls versus shakeforks. We would like the College to comment
on the issue, for consideration at the June meeting.

The arms of Cunningham of Glencairn are found as Argent, a pall sable
in David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll. (This roll consists of
emblazons rather than blazons, so there is no question about whether a
pall or a shakefork is intended.) The same arms are found using a
shakefork in period, per the depiction in the mid-fifteenth century
Armorial de Berry (where they are shown somewhat more like a pall
couped than the standard shakefork, which has pointed ends.)

It has long been accepted that the shakefork was a later development
of a pall, per Woodward's comment on pp. 151 and 152 of A Treatise on
Heraldry, British and Foreign:

In many old representations of the arms of the Cunningham family in
Scotland the charge is the pall, or pairle; i.e. the Ordinary is drawn
as touching the edges of the shield. It is now, however, depicted
differently; being couped and pointed at its extremities, as in Plate
XVI., fig 12, Argent, a shake-fork sable.

If one views the evidence in Lindsay as showing that the "pall" and
"shakefork" depictions were interchangeable throughout our period,
then by the strict principles of RfS X.4.e, we should not give
difference between them.

The most recent precedent on this topic was in the LoAR of May 2001
(Elizabeth Fitzwilliam of Carlisle), concerning a shakefork inverted
versus a pall inverted. In this precedent it was ruled that "By long
standing precedent there is a CD for ordinaries throughout versus
ordinaries couped; therefore, there is a CD for the change in the
primary charge". Based on a review of the collated commentary for that
submission, this precedent was based on general practices for other
ordinaries (specifically chevrons and crosses), rather than specific
practices for the particular ordinary under submission. This is
unsurprising when one considers the particular ordinary under
discussion in that precedent, the pall inverted, is extremely rare,
and the shakefork inverted does not seem to be found in period armory
at all.

The current precedent has the advantages of clarity and ease of
implementation: all ordinaries are treated in the same way. It is, of
course, possible that in period heraldry not all ordinaries were
treated in the same way. What may have been true for a commonly found
ordinary (like a cross) may not have been true for an uncommonly found
ordinary (like a pall). Still, the current general policy may have
enough to recommend it that it should be kept despite a few examples
to the contrary.

To help in research: Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll also gives a
number of cadet branches of the Cunningham family, all of which use
palls: Cunningham of Beltoune, Argent, a pall sable between three
mullets gules, ... of Glengarnow, Argent, on a pall sable a rose
argent, ... of Powmais, Argent, on a pall sable a mullet argent, ...of
Bernes, Argent a pall sable in chief a mullet gules, of a name left
blank in original MS, Argent, on a pall sable a mascle Or, and ... of
Cunninghamhead, Argent a pall in chief a mullet sable.

In your commentary, please address both the historical practices for
ordinaries couped versus throughout, and what the SCA's policy should
be on this matter.


3. Daffodils.  Issue.

This month's submission for Eleanor Fairchild led us to consider the
default posture for a daffodil. We would like the College to comment
on the issue, for consideration at the June meeting.

The SCA does not have a clear default for daffodils. This is a problem
since, as with a lotus, the flower when affronty looks very different
from the flower in profile. When the daffodil flower is in profile,
its prominent bell gives it an unmistakable posture as well: a
daffodil, bell to dexter, looks notably different from one with its
bell to sinister or to chief.

The earliest SCA registrations of a daffodil emblazon the daffodil's
flower as affronty. These are the registrations of Alianora Alexandra
da Lysh{ao}ret in 1971, Sable, three narcissi one and two slipped and
leaved proper, and Danielle of Headless House in 1973, Argent, a bend
sinister azure within a bordure azure charged with four daffodils Or
slipped and leaved proper. This matches the real-world default
according to Parker, who (under Narcissus) states that "the heraldic
form of this flower is practically a sexfoil". The narcissus only
resembles a sexfoil when it is affronty. Parker gives only one dated
coat of arms using this flower, in 1750. Preliminary research has not
uncovered a use of the daffodil in period armory.

Later SCA registrations show a greater number of depictions where the
daffodil flower is in some profile orientation, sometimes bell to
chief, but more often with the bell (more or less) fesswise. This is
probably a combination of the modern American view of the archetypal
daffodil (in profile, with its bell fesswise) and the fact that the
daffodil is listed in the Ordinary under Flower-Trumpet shape, which
implies that, like most trumpet-shaped flowers, it is in profile by
default.

We're throwing the question open to the College for commentary, since
any attempt to have a consistent blazon style for daffodils, narcissi
and jonquils will result in a significant number of reblazons among
the twenty-odd pieces of armory using such flowers. I suggest that the
likely default should either be with the blossom in profile, bell to
dexter, or with the blossom affronty.


4. Gwenllian de Castell Coch. Device. Argent, a pall between a cross
   of Jerusalem sable and two towers gules.

This pended device was originally item 17 on Artemisia's August 28,
2001, LoI.

The arms of Cunningham of Glencairn, Argent, a shakefork sable, are
currently protected as important non-SCA arms in the SCA. Electrum has
presented evidence that these arms were also found into the 16th
century in the form Argent, a pall sable, per the depiction in David
Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll. He has also presented evidence that
the Cunningham arms were found using a shakefork in period, per the
depiction in the mid-fifteenth century Armorial de Berry (where they
are shown somewhat more like a pall couped than the standard
shakefork, which has pointed ends.) Electrum has requested that we
consider whether we should protect the arms of Cunningham of Glencairn
in the form Argent, a pall sable, in addition to keeping the current
"shakefork" form protected.

Woodward specifically addresses the evolution of the arms of the
Cunningham family on pps. 151 and 152 of A Treatise on Heraldry,
British and Foreign:

    In many old representations of the arms of the Cunningham family
    in Scotland the charge is the pall, or pairle; i.e. the Ordinary
    is drawn as touching the edges of the shield. It is now, however,
    depicted differently; being couped and pointed at its extremities,
    as in Plate XVI., fig 12, Argent, a shake-fork sable.

Gwenllian's submission is pended while we consider this request.  If
the "pall" version of the Cunningham arms are protected, then
Gwenllian's arms will conflict with them, as there will only be one CD
for adding a secondary charge group.

When considering whether we should protect this "pall" form of
Cunningham of Glencairn, remember to address the balance of the "arms"
and "man" schools.  If the reason we are protecting Cunningham of
Glencairn in the "shakefork" form is largely because of its fame in
heraldic treatises as an example of the shakefork, then perhaps the
form using the pall is not famous enough to protect. However, if we
are protecting Cunningham of Glencairn largely because of of the
historical importance of the Cunningham Earls of Glencairn, then
perhaps the "pall" form would be famous enough to protect.

In this month's cover letter, we are also asking the College to
consider whether we should be giving difference shakeforks and
palls. Current precedent does give difference between these charges,
and the current standard will continue to apply to this submission, as
it was submitted under that standard.  Therefore, regardless of the
outcome of that discussion, this submission will be considered clear
of conflict with the currently protected "shakefork" arms of
Cunningham of Glencairn, Argent, a shakefork sable, with one CD for
changing the type of primary charge and another for adding the
secondary charges.



Pray know that I remain

In service




Fran{c,}ois la Flamme

Laurel Principal King of Arms