Society for Creative Anachronism
College of Arms

103 E. 30th St. Bldg 1 Apt 203
Austin, TX 78705
+1 512 942 7005
laurel@heraldry.sca.org

For the August 2015 meetings, printed October 13, 2015

To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from Andrewe Laurel, Lillia Pelican, and Brunissende 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 August Laurel decisions were made at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, August 16, 2015 + Roadshow Tuesday, August 4, 2015 and the Wreath meeting held on Sunday, August 23, 2015 + Roadshow Tuesday, August 4, 2015. These meetings considered the following letters of intent: Ansteorra (03 May, 2015), Laurel LoPaD (10 May, 2015), East (13 May, 2015), Atenveldt (15 May, 2015), Æthelmearc (17 May, 2015), Middle (18 May, 2015), Northshield (20 May, 2015), West (21 May, 2015), Ealdormere (24 May, 2015), Avacal (30 May, 2015), Lochac (30 May, 2015), Outlands (30 May, 2015), An Tir (31 May, 2015), Artemisia (31 May, 2015), Atlantia (31 May, 2015), Caid (31 May, 2015), Calontir (31 May, 2015), Meridies (31 May, 2015). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Friday, July 31, 2015.

The September Laurel decisions were made at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, September 13, 2015 and the Wreath meeting held on Sunday, September 20, 2015. These meetings considered the following letters of intent: Laurel LoPaD (23 Apr, 2015), Laurel LoPaD (09 Jun, 2015), East (10 Jun, 2015), Gleann Abhann (22 Jun, 2015), Outlands (22 Jun, 2015), Calontir (23 Jun, 2015), Gleann Abhann (23 Jun, 2015), Atlantia (24 Jun, 2015), Gleann Abhann (24 Jun, 2015), Gleann Abhann (24 Jun, 2015), Middle (24 Jun, 2015), Lochac (27 Jun, 2015), An Tir (29 Jun, 2015), Caid (29 Jun, 2015), Laurel LoPaD (29 Jun, 2015), Northshield (29 Jun, 2015), Ansteorra (30 Jun, 2015), Artemisia (30 Jun, 2015), Atenveldt (30 Jun, 2015), Avacal (30 Jun, 2015), Ealdormere (30 Jun, 2015), Meridies (30 Jun, 2015), Trimaris (30 Jun, 2015). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Monday, August 31, 2015.

The October Laurel decisions will be made at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, October 11, 2015 and the Wreath meeting held on Sunday, October 25, 2015. These meetings will consider the following letters of intent: Drachenwald (30 Jun, 2015) (pushed due to lack of packet) , Æthelmearc (05 Jul, 2015), West (14 Jul, 2015), Middle (21 Jul, 2015), Æthelmearc (22 Jul, 2015), Ealdormere (28 Jul, 2015), East (28 Jul, 2015), Outlands (28 Jul, 2015), Atenveldt (30 Jul, 2015), Atlantia (30 Jul, 2015), Caid (30 Jul, 2015), Northshield (30 Jul, 2015), An Tir LoItP (31 Jul, 2015), Ansteorra (31 Jul, 2015), Artemisia (31 Jul, 2015), Avacal (31 Jul, 2015), Calontir (31 Jul, 2015), Lochac (31 Jul, 2015), Meridies (31 Jul, 2015). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should have been entered into OSCAR by Wednesday, September 30, 2015.

The November Laurel decisions will be made at the Pelican meeting held on Sunday, November 15, 2015 and the Wreath meeting held on Sunday, November 22, 2015. These meetings will consider the following letters of intent: An Tir (01 Aug, 2015), Middle (10 Aug, 2015), Laurel LoPaD (15 Aug, 2015), Palimpsest Rules Letter (16 Aug, 2015), Northshield (19 Aug, 2015), Drachenwald (20 Aug, 2015), Atenveldt (25 Aug, 2015), Calontir (26 Aug, 2015), Artemisia (28 Aug, 2015), Ansteorra (29 Aug, 2015), Lochac (29 Aug, 2015), Trimaris (29 Aug, 2015), Atlantia (30 Aug, 2015), [Ealdormere (30 Aug, 2015)], Middle (30 Aug, 2015), West (30 Aug, 2015), An Tir (31 Aug, 2015), Caid (31 Aug, 2015), East (31 Aug, 2015), Gleann Abhann (31 Aug, 2015), Meridies (31 Aug, 2015), Outlands (31 Aug, 2015). All commentary, responses, and rebuttals should be entered into OSCAR by Saturday, October 31, 2015.

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: A Herald Extraordinary

Readers should be familiar with the July 1981 cover letter from Wilhelm that established the practice of granting the rank of Herald Extraordinary, and conveying the right to a Personal Heraldic Title to an individual who has given exemplary service to the College of Arms.

In accordance with this practice, and by the virtue of my office as Laurel King of Arms, I hereby name and style Rory ua Riada a Herald Extraordinary, and charge him to register a personal heraldic title with the College of Arms at his earliest convenience.

We are very grateful for Master Rory's work on behalf of the College of Arms, as well as the Kingdom of Gleann Abhann, and are pleased to be able to honor him this way.

* From Pelican: Protection of Real World Orders

This month, we decided whether the historical Order of Alcantara was worthy of super-protection under NPN4B2 of SENA, or whether it could be registered with the addition of the phrase of branch name. SENA states:

Order and award names may not include the names of the peerage orders or overt references to famous knightly orders such as the Garter. Other types of non-personal names may only use such elements in contexts where no reference to the order is likely to be perceived by members of the order and the general populace.

In addition, the wider question of which "famous knightly orders" are worthy of such protection was discussed.

The majority of commenters and those present at the Pennsic Roadshow agreed that super-protection of all real world orders was not necessary and that only the most important orders need to be super-protected. Examples of these "most important" orders are the Garter and the Golden Fleece. The use of these substantive elements in order names or in other submissions that can be confused with these orders is not permitted.

Less famous or less important real world orders can still be deemed worthy of normal protection in their documented forms, although changes can remove the appearance of presumption as described in NPN3 of SENA. However, those at the Roadshow overwhelmingly thought that a protected historical order name to which of branch name has been added is still presumptuous. Therefore, after the February 2016 Pelican meeting, we will no longer allow the addition of a branch name to a historical order name to remove the appearance of presumption. A rules letter will be drafted by Palimpsest. The submission on this month's letter has been registered.

* From Pelican: Summarize, summarize, summarize (and other housekeeping items)!

As discussed at KWHSS in the meetings with the submissions and principal heralds, we've noticed a number of recent Letters of Intent with missing documentation such as lack of summarization of what a source says and the full bibliographic information like author names and titles of sources. Citing Appendix H sources simply by their standard identifier (e.g., Geirr Bassi or Ekwall) is acceptable. An attached image containing the documentation summary is not sufficient - the information needs to be in the text of the Letter of Intent itself. Missing information impacts the amount of time it takes commenters and Sovereigns to review the Letters of Intent, and greatly increases the duration of the decision meetings.

If changes are suggested in kingdom or better documents are provided by internal commenters, it is fine to make the modifications to the name and documentation summary before sending the name to Laurel. All we need to know are (a) what was submitted and why it was changed, and (b) what the submitter wants. It is not always easy to tell if the submitter prefers the originally submitted form, the one in the Letter of Intent, or something else entirely. If the preference is expressed as clearly as possible, it will save me an email or two down the line. This also applies if an option from commentary is run by the submitter. If we know what is Plan A, and what is Plan B (and so forth), it is very helpful and helps us focus on what is most important. When a submitter asks about an alternative, please let us know whether we should change it to that form if we can document it.

A related question was raised recently about when a request for reconsideration should be used instead of a name change. RfRs are discussed in section IV.4 of the Administrative Handbook, as well as in the April 2011 Cover Letter. Basically, RfRs can be used if we change a name at some point, either in kingdom or at Laurel, and the submitter doesn't like the change, or they prefer a form we suggest in the LoAR. This assumes that what they prefer is registerable and that it is mentioned somewhere along the line during the submission and registration process. This applies even if we made the change in good faith, e.g., to meet an authenticity request or because the submitter expressed an interest in a different spelling. A name change should be used if the submitter wakes up one day and decides they want something different. For example, "I submitted Bob, I considered Robert, you registered Robert, but I want to go back to Bob" is an RfR. "...but what I really want now is Charles" is a name change. If you have an edge case, feel free to contact the Sovereigns to find out which should be used.

Lastly, another question was raised whether having the attestation of the legal name in the Letter of Intent, but not on the submission form or in commentary, is permitted. This is acceptable, but we recommend that this information be included somewhere in the submission packet. A note on the submission form is sufficient.

* From Pelican: Scandinavian Alternative Titles

Orle Herald proposed changes to list of alternate titles at http://heraldry.sca.org/titles.html. The proposal was split into four Ansteorran Letters of Intent dated November 23, January 23, February 4, and February 28, all of which were considered at the May 2015 Pelican decision meeting. The decision was delayed due to a lack of commentary on the proposal.

When the proposal was made, Table 4 included Danish titles, and Table 5 included Middle Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, and Old Norse titles. Orle proposed splitting the titles into Viking Age Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and Medieval Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. A number of modern titles were eliminated, and other period ones were added. Orle's documentation and research can be found at http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Stars/Titles/Scandinavian_Titles.htm. The List of Alternate Titles is intended to "allow those in the Society with various personae to use titles appropriate to those personae". However, we note that the Society's hierarchy does not fit a particular historic model, so our use of alternate titles does not always correspond to how they were used in period.

We are making the following changes:

- For "King", the titles are Konungr for Viking Age Norway and Sweden; Konungr and Konung for Viking Age Denmark; Konungr and Konung(h) for Medieval Norway; Konung(h), Koning(h), and Konig for Medieval Denmark; and Konung(h), Konung(e)r, and Kununger for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Queen", the titles are Dróttning for Viking Age Norway, Denmark, and Sweden; Drotning(h), Drotingenne, Drotnigh, and Dronning for Medieval Norway; and Drotning for Medieval Denmark and Sweden. The titles for "Queen Regnant" in Viking Age Norway would be Hofuðdróttning and Meykongr.

- For "Prince", the titles are Oðlingr for Viking Age Norway; Jungherra, Junc(k)her, Junkher, Forste, F(f)ørste, and Furst(e) for Medieval Norway; Furst for Medieval Denmark; and Först for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Princess", the titles are Jung- Junc- Jun(c)k-/-frú -fru -frw -fraw, Førstinne, Førstinde, Forstinna, and Furstinde for Medieval Norway; Jungfrauwe, Junckfruw, and Juncvrow for Medieval Denmark; and Junc(k)fru(e) for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Duke", the titles are Hertogi for Viking Age Norway; Hertogi, Hertug(h), and Hertog(h) for Medieval Norway; Hertug, Hertig, Herteghe, Hertoge, and Hertogh(e) for Medieval Denmark; and Hertugh and Hætogher for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Duchess", the titles are Hertogakona for Viking Age Norway; Hertug(h)inna and Hertog(h)inna for Medieval Norway; and Hertoghinne for Medieval Denmark and Sweden.

- For "Count", the titles are Jarl for Viking Age Norway and Sweden; Jarl, Greifi, Greffue, Gre(ff)we, and Greff for Medieval Norway; Jarl, Greue, and Greffue for Medieval Denmark; and Jarl and Greifi for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Countess", the titles are Jarlkona and Jarlskona for Viking Age Norway; Grevinne, Grefinne, and Greffinne for Medieval Norway; and Grevinne for Medieval Denmark and Sweden.

- For "Viscount" and "Viscountess", no evidence could be found to support analogues to these titles prior to 1650.

- For "Master", the titles are Meistari, Íþróttamaðr, Kennari, and Lærifaðir for Viking Age Iceland and Norway; Meistare, Mester, Meister, Magister, and Lærer for Medieval Norway; Mesteri and Mæster for Medieval Denmark; and Mæistari, Mæstare, and Mæster for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Mistress", the titles are Íþróttakona and Lærimóðir for Viking Age Iceland and Norway; Mesterinde, Lærerinde, and Læremoder for Medieval Norway; Læremoder for Medieval Denmark; and Läremoder and Mästarinna for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Knight", the titles are Kappi for Viking Age Iceland; Riddari, Ridd(h)are, Ridd(h)ere, and Ridder for Medieval Norway; Ridd(h)er(e) for Medieval Denmark; and Riddare, Riddere, and Ryttare for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Sir", the form of address is Herra for Medieval Norway; Her for Medieval Denmark; and Her, Herra, and Hærre for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Baron", the titles are Goði, Hofðingi, and Ágætr maðr for Viking Age Iceland; Hersir for Viking Age Norway; Landmanna for Viking Age Denmark; Lendr maðr and Barún for Medieval Norway; Landmannr for Medieval Denmark; and Barun for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Baroness", the titles are Ágætr kona for Viking Age Iceland; and Hersirkona, Hersiskona, and Ágætr kona for Viking Age Norway. No analogues were found for Medieval Norway, Denmark, or Sweden.

- For "Lord", the titles are Drót(t)in for Viking Age Norway; Drot(t)in for Viking Age Denmark; Drottin for Viking Age Sweden; Herra, Herre, and Her for Medieval Norway; Her and Drót(t)in(n) for Medieval Denmark; and Drotin for Medieval Sweden.

- For "Lady", the titles are Frú, Frauva, Frouva, and Frou for Viking Age Norway; Fruha for Viking Age Denmark; Fru(e), Frw(e), Frv(e), Fruwe, Ffrve, Ffrw, and Ffrue for Medieval Norway; Frue, Fruæ, Frughæ, and Frowe for Medieval Denmark; and Fru, Fruæ, Frw(e), Frwæ, Fru(u)a, and Frugha for Medieval Sweden.

All other alternate titles for the previous language categories have been eliminated. Accents can be dropped if needed to be consistent with an individual's name. We note that the titles were generally used as bynames, particularly in the Viking Age, and usually appeared in lower case. An exception is Herra ("Sir" or "Lord"), which was borne before the individual's name.

We thank Orle for all of her hard work documenting the various titles and collating and graphing the data, and for the assistance of Eirik Halfdanarson for his work in issuing the special Letters of Intent.

* From Pelican: Alternate Titles in Turkish

In January 2015, we put out a call for a discussion on whether to accept a proposal from Green Staff:

In November 2014, Green Staff pointed out that some of our current alternate titles in Turkish were not used in period, and suggested period forms. Thank you to Green Staff for her hard work.

The current List of Alternate Titles is found at http://heraldry.sca.org/titles.html.

Barones, Kontess, Vikontess, Des are the modern Turkish borrowings of the English Baroness, Countess, Viscountess, and Duchess, respectively. No evidence was found that any of these forms were used in period. If this proposal is accepted, these titles would be released.

For Lady, Hanimefendi is a compound form of Hanm, a Turkish form of Khanum ("royal woman"), and Efendi, a modern Turkish title. No evidence was found that this compound was used in period. If this proposal is accepted, Hanimefendi would be released.

The proposal suggested a replacement for all of these titles: Hatun or Htn, a period transliteration of the modern Khatun. Khatun is a Turkic title used by the wives and female relatives of the rulers of various Central Asian states through much of our period. Htn is the usual title for daughters of the sultans through the early 15th century. By the 16th century, however, forms of this title was used by lower-ranking women, for example, court records show townswomen in Istanbul with the title Hatun. Therefore, Green Staff recommended its use for women holding rank from Lady through royal peerage. As a reminder, in use, Turkish titles follow the given name.

We understand that normal Society practice is that our titles reflect our hierarchy. However, if this proposal is accepted, this would not be the case for our Turkish alternative titles. As there was only a single comment in OSCAR concerning this proposal, we are requesting further discussion about this point, and whether it is better in this case to follow period practice or maintain a clear hierarchy in line with Society traditions, even if it is not authentic.

Unfortunately, this call for comments slipped through the cracks. Therefore, I am formally pending this for one last round of comments. Please note that we have precedent for the use of a single title for multiple ranks in Old English, where Hlaefdige is suggested for all feminine titles except Queen. Lastly, as noted above, the Society's hierarchy does not fit a particular historic model, so our use of alternate titles does not always correspond to how they were used in period.

* From Wreath: Eliminating the unsustainable "maintained/sustained" definitions

On the May 2015 Cover Letter, the College of Arms was asked to discuss a proposal to change our current standards governing sustained and maintained charges. For many years, the determination of whether or not a charge is sustained or maintained has been done on the basis of visual weight. In several aspects, that practice has left both heralds and submitters unsatisfied. A charge large enough to grant difference as a secondary or tertiary charge has been frequently considered to not grant difference if conjoined or held, though no difference is granted for the conjoining itself. One of the arguments in favor of these standards has been that maintained charges are charges which, in period practice, are sometimes omitted from the emblazon. However, the number of period designs which sometimes omit the maintained charges is amazingly small.

Commentary has brought no compelling reason to maintain (or sustain) the current standards. Therefore, effective immediately, we are adopting the following definition: a charge, held or conjoined, which is clearly not a co-primary charge is equivalent to the former definition of sustained if it is identifiable, no matter what its size. Sustained charges grant a cadency difference - currently referred to as a "DC". This standard is intended to include charges which are much smaller than the current definition: a charge large enough to grant difference as a tertiary charge will grant one as held/conjoined charge. Held/conjoined charges must have good contrast with their background.

All held/conjoined charges count towards the complexity limits - both for type and tincture. This specifically overturns the section of the May 2014 Cover Letter that states "We will not count the type or tincture of maintained charges. ». Because the relative size of the held/conjoined does not affect its role for complexity or conflict checking, there is no need for size-specific terminology.

A held or conjoined charge which is not identifiable will render the design unregisterable. A charge may be rendered unidentifiable through the usual methods, including reduction in size, poor contrast, etc...

A maintained charge on already registered armory will be considered for conflict purpose only if it fulfills the criteria for identifiability (which implies, at least, good contrast).

This does not change how to determine if held or conjoined charges are co-primary charges. We will continue to return items which blur the distinction between co-primary charges and held/conjoined secondary charges.

Charges which, in period, have held/conjoined charges which are sometimes there and sometimes not (for example a squirrel holding a nut), must have those charges blazoned if they are to count for difference. Anyone in the SCA who wants a held or conjoined charge which is sometimes there and sometimes not must register both variants of the design independently. We will also consider mundane protected armory under this new rule.

* From Laurel: New Packet Upload Deadlines

Packets have long been required to be uploaded into OSCAR by the end of the month following LoI publication. This has allowed for the development of issues surrounding missing forms or accuracy problems which has resulted in pends or returns for submitters.

In order to cut down on these issues, effective with the publication of November Letters of Intent, packets will be due in OSCAR by the 10th of the month following publication. For November letters, packets will be due by December 10th. Letters with packets uploaded after the deadline WILL be pushed.

* Society Pages

On September 12th, at Angels Anniversary in Caid, Paul Crescent with the consent of Their Royal Majesties Athanaric and Sigriðr elevated Cormac Mór to the rank of Herald Extraordinary and granted him the right to a personal heraldic title.

Please send information about happenings to major heralds and major happenings to all heralds to Laurel, so that it can be published here.

* 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. All submission forms plus documentation, including petitions, must be posted to the OSCAR online system. While black-and-white emblazons must be included in the Letter of Intent, only colored armory forms need to be posted in the forms area.

Cheques or money orders for submissions, payable to "SCA Inc.-College of Arms" are to be sent to Stephanie Ray-Solum, Blue Bug Bookkeeping, 2144 Westlake Ave. North Suite F, Seattle, WA 98109.

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,

Andrewe Bawldwyn
Laurel Principal King of Arms


Created at 2015-10-13T20:45:45