Society for Creative Anachronism
College of Arms

15910 Val Verde Drive
Houston TX, 77083-4921

For the December 2001 meetings, printed February 28, 2002

To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from François 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 meetings. Due to the LoAR postmark, they are now scheduled for June. ("Sauce for the goose...")

The December meetings were held Saturday, December 8, 2001 (Wreath) and Saturday, December 15, 2001 (Pelican), and considered these Letters of Intent dated in July and August 2001: Drachenwald (July 19, which was postponed for administrative reasons), Atenveldt (August 1), Caid (August 9), Middle (August 5), East (August 15), Atlantia (August 16, 25, and 27), Lochac (August 18), Ansteorra (August 25), Drachenwald (August 26), Artemisia (August 28), An Tir (August 29), Meridies (August 31), and Ealdormere (August).

The January meetings were held on Saturday, January 19, 2002, and considered these Letters of Intent dated in September 2001: Atenveldt (September 1), Middle (September 9), Ansteorra (September 16), Atlantia (September 17), Drachenwald (September 17), West (September 17), Lochac (September 18), Caid (September 22), An Tir (September 27), Outlands (September 28), Trimaris (September 28), and Meridies (September 30). Calontir (September 28) was postmarked October 2, so it will be postponed until the February meeting.

The February meetings were held on Saturday, February 9, 2002. They considered the five pended items from the August 2001 LoAR. They also considered these Letters of Intent: Calontir (September 28, 2001, postponed due to postmark), Atenveldt (October 1), Middle (October 12), Æthelmearc (October 15), Outlands (October 17), Ansteorra (October 20), Caid (October 20), Lochac (October 20), Drachenwald (October 21), Atlantia (October 22), An Tir (October 26), Calontir (October 30), Meridies (October 31).

The March meetings are scheduled for Saturday, March 16, 2002 (Wreath, with a March 24 road show at the An Tir Heraldic Symposium) and Saturday, March 23, 2002 (Pelican, plus a March 13 road show at Gulf Wars). Wreath will consider the "brown proper" issue. They will also consider these Letters of Intent: Atenveldt (November 1, 2001), Caid (November 2), Ansteorra (November 15), Lochac (November 15), Atlantia (November 16), Drachenwald (November 16), Æthelmearc (November 17), Outlands (November 17), West (November 23), An Tir (November 29), and Meridies (November 30). The LoI from the Middle (November 9) is scheduled for the next month due to postmark.

The April meetings are scheduled for Saturday, April 13, 2002. They will consider the Laurel LoI for "Wreath Sovereign of Arms". They will also consider the Laurel items from the September LoAR, as listed on that LoAR's Laurel Letter of Pends and Discussion dated December 12, 2001: three pended items and the Gaelic and Anglicized Particles issue. They will also consider these Letters of Intent dated in December 2001: Middle (November 9), Caid (December 1), East (December 2), East (December 9), Calontir (December 13), Drachenwald (December 13), Lochac (December 15), Atlantia (December 17), Outlands (December 17), Artemisia (December 24), West (December 26), Trimaris (December 28), and Meridies (December 31). For administrative reasons, the following letters are not yet scheduled: Atenveldt (December 1), Middle (December 5), Æthelmearc (December 23), An Tir (December 28), and Caid (December 30). Original commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than February 28, 2002. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than March 31, 2002.

The May meetings are tentatively scheduled for Saturday, May 11, 2002. They will discuss these Letters of Intent dated in January 2002: Middle (January 2), Outlands (January 17), Drachenwald (January 18), Atlantia (January 18), Nebuly LoItP (January 25), West (January 27), Ealdormere (January 28), and Meridies (January 31). For administrative reasons, the following letters are not yet scheduled: Caid (January 6), Trimaris (January 18), Æthelmearc (January 18), East (January 20), An Tir (January 25), and Artemisia (January 27). Original commentary on these LoIs must be in the College's hands no later than March 31, 2002. Responses and rebuttals to commentary must be in the College's hands no later than April 30, 2002.

The June Wreath meeting is extremely tentatively scheduled for Saturday, June 15, 2002. There will also be the traditional road-show meeting at Known World Heraldic Symposium, in Kissimmee, Florida (near Orlando) on June 21-23, 2002. The June meetings will discuss the pend and issues from this LoAR: the pended device of Gwenllian de Castell Coch, the shakefork/pall issue, and the daffodil orientation issue. They will also consider the issues from the November 2001 LoAR: the Lingua Anglica Allowance and two pends. They will discuss these Letters of Intent dated in February 2002.

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 all administrative requirements are met, the letter may not be scheduled.

From Laurel: Appeals for Names That Were Registered?

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).

Please submit your suggestions for the June 2002 Laurel decision meetings. Commentary must be in the College's hands no later than May 31, 2002.

From Wreath: Palls, Shakeforks, and Couped Ordinaries

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.

Please submit your comments for the June 2002 Laurel decision meetings. Commentary must be in the College's hands no later than May 31, 2002.

From Wreath: A Host of Golden Daffodils (and Other Tinctures, Too)

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 Lyshåret 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.

Please submit your comments for the June 2002 Laurel decision meetings. Commentary must be in the College's hands no later than May 31, 2002.

From Pelican: Changes to the Registerability of the name Briana

The name Briana has been found as the name of a human character in period Spanish literature, specifically the Espejo de Principes y Cavalleros.

Names of human characters in period literature are registerable with certain restrictions. (See the Cover Letter for the November 1999 LoAR for details.) Since Briana is the name of a human character in the Espejo, which was written in Spanish, it meets these requirements and is registerable as a Spanish feminine given name.

The first part of the Espejo was translated into English in 1578. The complete title (of the English version) is The mirrour of princely deedes and knighthood: wherein is shewed the worthinesse of the Knight of the Sunne, and his brother Rosicleer, sonnes to the great Emperour Trebetio: with the strange loue of the beautifull and excellent princesse Briana, and the valiant actes of other noble princes and knightes. Now newly translated out of Spanish into our vulgar English tongue, by M.T. Therefore, since Briana is the name of a human character in period literature available in English, the name Briana is registerable as an English feminine given name.

In addition, since we now have evidence that the name Briana was known in period literature and is registerable as such, it no longer needs to be SCA compatible.

The spelling Brianna has previously been SCA compatible. This spelling was registered twice in 1998, once in 2000, and not at all in 1999 and 2001, showing a decrease in the popularity of this form. Therefore, barring documentation of this spelling in period, we will discontinue registering it beginning with the July 2002 decision meeting.

So, the summary of changes to the registerability status of the name Briana is:

Roster changes

The office of Lymphad Herald (external submissions for Trimaris) has changed hands. It was reflected in the roster with the November LoAR, but not mentioned in the cover letter. Add to the roster and mailing list Beatrice de Winslow (M. J. Caslake), 1027 Spring Meadow Dr, Kissimmee, FL 34741, 407-931-1875 (no calls after 9:30 P. M. Eastern), (Please waive the signature on any Express Mail or packages.) Alwyn Stewart (Alvin J. Bedgood), the former Lymphad, is removed from the roster and mailing list.

Golden Dolphin Herald (Atlantian external submissions), Alanna of Volchevo Lesa (Lucinda Welenc), has a new e-mail address:

Send What to Whom

For all Letters of Intent, Comment, Response, Correction, &c, send one paper copy to each of Laurel PKoA and Wreath QoA at their mailing addresses as shown on the College of Arms Mailing List.

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 . 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), 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 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 The electronic copy is available free of charge.

For all administrative matters, or for questions about whom to send to, please contact Laurel Principal King of Arms, whose contact information heads this letter.

Pray know that I remain

In service

François la Flamme

Laurel Principal King of Arms

Created at 2002-02-24T22:25:01