Society for Creative Anachronism
College of Arms

2212 S. 64th Plaza, #418
Omaha, NE, 68106
+1 952 412 4112
laurel@heraldry.sca.org

For the October 2012 meetings, printed Tuesday, December 4, 2012

To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from Gabriel Laurel, Juliana Pelican, and Emma Wreath, greetings.

Items listed below in square brackets have not been scheduled yet. For information about future scheduling, please review the status table located on the Web at http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=137.

The October Laurel decisions were made at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, October 14, 2012 and at the Wreath meeting held on Saturday, October 20, 2012. These meetings considered the following letters of intent: Northshield (08 Jul, 2012), Calontir (10 Jul, 2012), East (20 Jul, 2012), Atlantia (21 Jul, 2012), West (23 Jul, 2012), Outlands (24 Jul, 2012), Atenveldt (25 Jul, 2012), Meridies (25 Jul, 2012), Lochac (27 Jul, 2012), Middle (28 Jul, 2012), Caid (29 Jul, 2012), Ęthelmearc (31 Jul, 2012), An Tir (31 Jul, 2012), Ansteorra (31 Jul, 2012), Artemisia (31 Jul, 2012), Gleann Abhann (31 Jul, 2012), and Laurel (31 Jul, 2012). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Sunday, September 30, 2012.

The November Laurel decisions were made at the Wreath meeting held on Saturday, November 3, 2012, at the Pelican road show in An Tir held on Sunday, November 4, 2012, and at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, November 11, 2012. These meetings considered the following letters of intent: Trimaris (25 Jul, 2012) (pushed due to lack of payment), Laurel LoPaD (05 Aug, 2012), Northshield (07 Aug, 2012), Outlands (17 Aug, 2012), Calontir (24 Aug, 2012), East (26 Aug, 2012), Gleann Abhann (27 Aug, 2012), Caid (28 Aug, 2012), Atlantia (29 Aug, 2012), Drachenwald (29 Aug, 2012), Ansteorra (30 Aug, 2012), Atenveldt (30 Aug, 2012), Lochac (30 Aug, 2012), Middle (30 Aug, 2012), An Tir (31 Aug, 2012), Meridies (31 Aug, 2012), and West (31 Aug, 2012). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Wednesday, October 31, 2012.

The December Laurel decisions will be made at the Pelican meeting held Sunday, December 2, 2012 and at the Wreath meeting held Saturday, December 15, 2012. These meetings will consider the following letters of intent: Ęthelmearc (02 Sep, 2012), Laurel LoPaD (08 Sep, 2012), Northshield (16 Sep, 2012), Caid (17 Sep, 2012), Middle (19 Sep, 2012), Outlands (23 Sep, 2012), Atenveldt (25 Sep, 2012), East (27 Sep, 2012), Gleann Abhann (27 Sep, 2012), Trimaris (28 Sep, 2012), Atlantia (29 Sep, 2012), Ealdormere (29 Sep, 2012), Lochac (29 Sep, 2012), An Tir (30 Sep, 2012), Ansteorra (30 Sep, 2012), Calontir (30 Sep, 2012), Meridies (30 Sep, 2012), and West (30 Sep, 2012). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Friday, November 30, 2012.

The January Laurel decisions will be made at the Wreath meeting held on Saturday, January 19, 2013 and at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, January 20, 2013. These meetings will consider the following letters of intent: Middle (10 Oct, 2012), Middle (12 Oct, 2012), Northshield (21 Oct, 2012), Gleann Abhann (24 Oct, 2012), [Ęthelmearc (25 Oct, 2012)], Atenveldt (25 Oct, 2012), East (26 Oct, 2012), Caid (27 Oct, 2012), Middle (27 Oct, 2012), [Artemisia (30 Oct, 2012)], Meridies (30 Oct, 2012), [Ęthelmearc (31 Oct, 2012)], An Tir (31 Oct, 2012), [Ansteorra (31 Oct, 2012)], Atlantia (31 Oct, 2012), [Drachenwald (31 Oct, 2012)], [Lochac (31 Oct, 2012)], and Outlands (31 Oct, 2012). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should be entered into OSCAR by Monday, December 31, 2012.

The February Laurel decisions will be made at the Pelican and Wreath meetings held in February 2013. These meetings will consider the following letters of intent: Laurel LoPaD (03 Nov, 2012), Northshield (07 Nov, 2012), Middle (08 Nov, 2012), Atlantia (09 Nov, 2012), Caid (11 Nov, 2012), [Calontir (12 Nov, 2012)], [An Tir (20 Nov, 2012)], Ansteorra (21 Nov, 2012), Outlands (25 Nov, 2012), [Ealdormere (26 Nov, 2012)], [Ęthelmearc (30 Nov, 2012)], [Atenveldt (30 Nov, 2012)], [Drachenwald (30 Nov, 2012)], [Gleann Abhann (30 Nov, 2012)], [Lochac (30 Nov, 2012)], and [Meridies (30 Nov, 2012)]. All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should be entered into OSCAR by Thursday, January 31, 2013.

Not all letters of intent may be considered when they are originally scheduled on this cover letter. The date of posting 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, et cetera) have not yet been met.

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

* From Laurel: So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!

This letter marks the end of the transition between the RfS and SENA. The RfS has had a good run, and we appreciate its long and thoughtful service.

From now on, acceptance and returns of all registrations will be governed using SENA. We will no longer be accepting items that "pass" through the RfS but not SENA (not that there have been that many).

* From Pelican and Wreath: Submissions Analysis for October

During the transition period now ending, we are sharing our counts of the results of considering submissions this month under both the Rules for Submissions and the Standards for Evaluation. These counts include registered or returned items only; no administrative actions such as transfers or acceptances, associations of existing armory, heraldic wills, or other such letters are included in these counts.

"Armory style" and "armory conflict" indicate if a submitted item could only be passed under one rule set or the other due to conflict or style issues. For example, a submission that could not be registered under the old rules due to conflict but could be registered without conflict under the new standards is counted as "passed under the new standards, but not old" as armory conflict.

If math is not your thing, it may be interesting to note that if all submissions were considered only under the Rules for Submissions, there would be an 86% success rate. Considered only under the Standards for Evaluation, there would be an 89% success rate.

* From Pelican and Wreath: Blanket Letters of Permission to Conflict: Pick One!

Appendix D of the Administrative Handbook has suggested standard form letters for a variety of things. For the Blanket Permission to Conflict for both names and fielded armory, there is a choice in the form letter that needs to be made.

Specifically, the text of the Blanket Permission to Conflict for names contains the sentence "I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is (not identical to/at least a syllable different from) my registered name." There is a difference between a name that is "not identical to" and a name that is "at least a syllable different from". To avoid confusion, please make sure only one of these option is selected, not both.

Likewise, the text of the Blanket Permission to Conflict for fielded armory contains the sentence "I grant permission to any future submitter to register armory that is (not identical to|at least one countable step different from) my registered armory." There is a difference between armory that is "not identical to" and armory that is "at least one countable step different from". For the latter, we count a single Distinct Change (DC), but for the former, we count any blazonable difference, regardless of whether the difference is worth a DC or not. To avoid confusion, please make sure only one of these options is selected, not both.

* From Pelican: Some Name Resources (an Ongoing Series)

With the passing of the Rules for Submissions, we need to consider the situation with double given names (what Americans today might call a first name and a middle name). There are several languages for which we will register double given names, but consider them a step from period practice. As steps from period practice in names no longer exist, those practices must either be registerable or not.

People with double given names can be found in many different parts of Europe, but people with single given names are the vast majority in every time and place. Double given names coupled with bynames (as opposed to a single given name coupled with a byname that is an unmarked patronymic) are mainly a phenomenon of the later parts of our period.

In the British Isles, double given names are always rare. They're found in late period England. In Wales, double given names are not clearly found, but unmarked patronymic bynames often look like double given names, so a name like Thomas William Jones can be found in Welsh.

Current precedent makes double given names in Scots a step from period practice. In Scotland, there are two late period examples of double given names, both royal. We do not generally use royalty as a model for general naming. However, given the broad overlap between the Scots naming pool and the English one, most combinations of Scots given names could be redocumented as English combinations. Therefore, it makes sense to allow double given names to be registered even when the names are found only in Scots.

There is no evidence of double given names in Gaelic in our period. As such, they are not registerable. This is true for Gaelic in both Ireland and Scotland. Moreover, double given names are not registerable in Anglicized Irish. Unlike Scots, which is a language with its own naming rules, Anglicized Irish remains through the end of our period just a way of writing down Gaelic names using English script. As such, double given names are not registerable without evidence of the practice there either. In some cases, Anglicized Irish names are identical to English names; where the name elements can be documented as English names, they may be treated as English (which has double given names).

We have evidence of double given names for most of the Romance languages of southern Europe, including Spanish, Catalan, and Italian. Italian is the only language in which they're relatively common (though never more than a few percent of names) and the only language in which we've found three given names.

The situation is more complex in northern Europe. Double given names are found in German, but not in Dutch. We have no evidence of double given names in Scandinavia before 1600.

Double given names are found in Russia; the most normal pattern is a Christian name followed by a native Russian name, but Paul Wickenden notes "Semenova (1969: 88-9) notes that there are exceptions to this pattern, with both names being Christian in origin or both Russian, or with the order simply reversed (i.e., Russian -- Christian)." Therefore, any combination of given names is registerable. We have evidence of double given names in Polish as well. We have no evidence that supports double given names for other Eastern European languages. This may reflect a lack of data, but we still require evidence.

We have no evidence of double given names in Arabic or other Middle Eastern languages.

* From Wreath: The Shape of Things -- Gouttes

In August 1996, when ruling that gouttes could not be voided, the Cover Letter of the LoAR stated:

While it is true that goutes in period were occasionally drawn like a modern teardrop, that form was the exception, not the rule. The more standard period form looks like a thin drop with a long wavy tail which is not a "simple geometric form".

This ruling apparently was repeating an earlier ruling from the August 1995 LoAR, which said "there are period examples of tear-drop goutes..." An inspection of the commentary at the time, however, provided no actual evidence aside from a statement by one commenter.

We invite commenters to provide information regarding period depictions of gouttes. Specifically, we are wishing to find any attestations of teardrop shaped gouttes, or gouttes shaped in ways other than the standard thin drop with a long wavy tail.

* From Wreath: Dastardly Tierces

This month we considered several designs with tierces, one of which used central ordinaries. The resulting design looked off-balanced, and prompted some further research on tierces.

Tierces do not seem to have been used in period armory at all, although they can be found in some heraldic tracts shown on plain fields. Without further evidence as to how tierces affect the field, we will treat them as we treat chiefs. That is to say, that the rest of the field should be centered in the space remaining to it. Given the lack of evidence of their actual use, and the fact that they make the field unbalanced, there is a step from period practice for the use of any other charges with a tierce.

* From Palimpsest: Update to Appendix A of the Admin Handbook

There are two sections of the Governing Documents of the SCA (known colloquially as "Corpora") which directly reference Laurel and/or the College of Arms: Section VI. Society Officers, subsection C and Section VIII.B. Other Awards, subsections 2 and 4. However, only the first one (VI.C.) is currently listed in Appendix A of the Administrative Handbook. This occasionally causes some confusion when heralds are looking in the Admin Handbook for a citation of the rule in the other one (VIII.B.2. and VIII.B.4.). Therefore, effective immediately, we are making the following changes to Appendix A: dropping "(From Section VI. Society Officers)" from the title, adding "Section VI. Society Officers" before "C. Laurel Sovereign of Arms and the College of Arms", and adding the full text of both VIII.B.2. and VIII.B.4. from the Governing Documents to the end of Appendix A.

Please note that this does not represent any change in policy or rule on the part of the Laurel office - we are simply making this information available in a location that heralds are likely to look for rules.

* From Palimpsest: Updates to Appendices D, F and L of SENA

The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory Appendix D, Acceptable Transliteration Systems for Non-Latin Scripts, section F. Arabic, currently reads, in part:

For each, we will register a simplified form that omits macrons (long marks) over letters and replaces emphatic (dotted) consonants with undotted ones. We also allow transliterations that omit `ayn (`) and (') hamza or that use ' for both, but only if they also omit the macrons and emphatic marks.

To clarify the intent that simplified forms are not the only registerable forms, effective immediately, we are changing this portion to read:

For each, we will also register a simplified form that omits macrons (long marks) over letters and replaces emphatic (dotted) consonants with undotted ones. We also allow transliterations that omit `ayn (`) and (') hamza or that use ' for both, but only if they also omit the macrons and emphatic marks.

The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory Appendix F, Some Armorial Elements that Do Not Need Further Documentation, currently reads, in part:

The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A.3.B.1. Other heraldic tinctures may only be registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.

Effective immediately, we are changing this portion to read:

The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A.3.B.1. Furs are treated as a single tincture; a fur may combine any listed color with any listed metal. For example, gules ermined Or and vairy argent and sable are both considered single tinctures. Other heraldic tinctures may only be registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.

The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory Appendix L, A Partial List of Postures and Orientations, currently does not describe how the body parts of animate charges are categorized. They should be categorized with "Other Animate Charges" in section G. That section currently reads, in part:

G. Other Animate Charges: Animate charges with postures that do not fit into these categories may be classified into one of those categories on a case by case basis, or may be ruled to receive complete change of posture against none of them.

Effective immediately, we are changing this portion to read:

G. Other Animate Charges: Animate charges with postures that do not fit into these categories, including the body parts of animate charges, may be classified into one of those categories on a case by case basis, or may be ruled to receive complete change of posture against none of them.

In all cases, the bold text indicates additions.

* Society Pages

With the passage of Washington's initiative R74, Juliana de Luna, Pelican Queen of Arms, and Richenda du Jardin, Black Antelope Herald, have announced their engagement.

* Send What to Whom

Letters of Intent, Comment, Response, Correction, et cetera are to be posted to the OSCAR online system. No paper copies need be sent.

Submission packets (one copy of each name form plus documentation, including petitions; two colored copies of each armory form plus two copies of any associated documentation, including petitions) to the SCA College of Arms, 3101 Lee Hwy Ste 18/19 #178, Bristol VA 24202.

Cheques or money orders for submissions, payable to "SCA Inc.-College of Arms" are to be sent to David Duggar, Attn: Laurel Chancellor of Exchequer, 1705 Holiday Pl, Bossier City, LA 71112-3706.

Send roster changes and corrections to Laurel. College of Arms members may also request a copy of the current roster from Laurel.

For a paper copy of a LoAR, please contact Laurel, at the address above. The cost for one LoAR is $3. Please make all checks or money orders payable to "SCA Inc.-College of Arms". The electronic copy of the LoAR is available free of charge. To subscribe to the mailings of the electronic copy, please see the bottom of http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/lists.html#lists for more instructions.

For all administrative matters, please contact Laurel.

Pray know that I remain,

In service,

Gabriel Kjotvason
Laurel Principal King of Arms


Created at 2012-12-04T21:50:58