The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
Administrative Precedents
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Misc
When I accepted the Laurel post, I knew that eventually, inevitably, I'd overturn some policy or precedent of some previous Laurel. That didn't mean I'd go out of my way to look for precedents to overturn; it would just happen. Well, it just happened, at the July meeting; see the discussion on Mon, below. It will continue to happen; so I want to say a few words about the process.
In general, precedents are made during the consideration of a specific submission. The facts on hand at the time of that submission are weighed, balanced against external factors (e.g. SCA policy on, say, pretension), and a synthesis reached. The same is true for the overturning of precedent: it's triggered by a specific submission, which happens to involve a topic where the College has had problems in the recent past. It's not generally something a Laurel Sovereign plans.
For that reason, a new Laurel doesn't begin his tenure by announcing all the precedents he intends to overturn. He may not have any such intention; or he may not have identified the ones with which he disagrees, though he may have some vague ideas. I won't deny I've disagreed with some previous Laurel rulings --- as a regular commenter during the last seven years, I'd've been hard pressed not to disagree with some Laurel rulings. But I probably won't be moved to take action on those rulings until the issue is right under my nose, so to speak.
This may mean returning a submission that, under a previous Laurel's standards, might have been registerable. It's been suggested that this is unfair to the submitters, who won't know my opinion on certain issues until it's too late --- that, if I should overturn a precedent, the old precedent must still apply to the submission that sparked my decision. I can't accept this, for two reasons. First, my opinions on most matters are a matter of record (those seven years of commentary, again); they should come as no surprise to anyone who's been active long enough to become a Kingdom's submissions herald.
Second, I can't and won't tie Laurel's hands so completely. To quote a previous discussion on this point: "I feel we have an obligation to try to be fair to people whose submissions were en route at the time a change took place; but I also feel that this obligation is bidirectional. A certain amount of compromise is necessary on both sides. ...By exempting the submitter from the change he precipitates, we deny ourselves the right to correct mistakes until they have become irrevocable. By subjecting the submitter to the changes, we deny our role as a service organization. Neither extreme is acceptable as a universal solution." (LoAR cover letter of 29 Dec 85; emphasis mine.)
If the precedent being overturned is a fundamental tenet of our heraldic system, I'll exempt the submitter who sparked my action. But if my "overturning" is only a minor re-interpretation that doesn't change the Rule itself, I'll probably apply my new ruling to the submission at hand. Beyond that, I can't very well say in advance what precedents --- if any --- I may overturn; it will depend on what's submitted. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
The Steward has recently reaffirmed that officers of the Corporation may correspond on computer bulletin boards -- but that they should be cautious in doing so, avoiding posting any message that might be taken as an Official Word. As warranted heralds are officers of the Corporation, the same stricture applies to us. I don't want to stop, or even hinder, anyone from participating in the dialogues on the nets, but they should do so as private individuals, not as members of the College of Arms. Any opinions expressed must be specifically and prominently marked as personal opinions, not as official CoA policy statements. (5 December, 1992 Cover Letter (October, 1992 LoAR), pg. 3)
When Papworth's blazons contain ellipses [...], we assume that he simply didn't know the exact tinctures -- and in cases of possible conflict, we give the submitter the benefit of the doubt...
For the record, we'll probably extend our policy to Chesshyre & Woodcock's Dictionary of British Arms (the so-called "New Papworth"); since that work explicitly contains only devices, not badges, we can assume that a blazon with no tinctures listed shows a lack of knowledge (or perhaps the overzealousness of the compilers), not tinctureless armory. (Helena Gereman, October, 1992, pg. 9)
At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority, as before.
This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status. Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the College.
I have two postscripts to this discussion, however. First, a survey of a typical Laurel meeting (Nov 92) showed something like 25% of all submissions being from non-members. (For one Kingdom, it was as high as 50%.) Our workload is constantly increasing, and we're always looking for ways to reduce it; one possible way is to limit submissions. Requiring membership remains a possible way of doing that, and would probably be more palatable than eliminating badge registration (to name another alternative). It's something to bear in mind, should the need ever arise.
Second, it remains true that we should at least encourage our submitters to become paid members of the Society; it's not unreasonable that those who take advantage of our services should help support the organization in which they apply. The College should achieve that goal through persuasion, rather than enforcement. We can begin by setting a good example: as officers of the Society, warranted heralds at every level are required to be paid members, which then puts us in a better position to explain the advantages of membership to others. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
Japanese-style submissions should use the appropriate submission form for a device or badge. A "primary mon" is a device, and should be submitted on a device form, not a badge form. Once registered, the submitter may use the armory on any shape he chooses; but we have enough details to coordinate without also having to worry about whether a submission is or isn't a badge. The whole purpose of separate device and badge forms is to allow heralds at every level of the submission process to tell, at a glance, exactly what sort of armory is being submitted. Please cooperate with us by using them as they were intended. (8 May, 1993 Cover Letter (March, 1993 LoAR), pg. 3)
I've recently received inquiries from a number of Society members --- none of them heralds, and from various Kingdoms --- asking questions like "when did the College of Arms start banning households?" or "how come So-and- So could register a badge when I can't?" They indicate to me that, in some places, "suggestions" about good style have become dictates.
This I find disturbing. While I know about (and usually encourage) diversity among the practices of the Known World, there are some things that should, for continuity's sake, remain constant. For the College of Arms, one such constant is in the Rules for Submission, including the Administrative Guidelines. These are equally applicable in all thirteen Kingdoms --- if only because every submitter has the right to appeal to Laurel, over the heads of their Kingdom College.
The uniform application of our Rules is self-evident in cases of disallowed practices. If a Kingdom College, for instance, were to decide on its own that sable on gules had sufficient contrast, and forward submissions based on that decision, they'd quickly find themselves corrected. Certainly, none of the forwarded submissions would be registered, as the Rules now stand. Problems where a Kingdom permits disallowed practices are self-correcting at the Laurel level.
In cases of allowed practices, however, the need for uniformity of the Rules is less evident. A Kingdom might decide on its own to forbid a poor (but legal) heraldic practice --- say, forbid the use of compass stars or garden roses --- and the effect at the Laurel level would be the same as if that Kingdom had begun a massive education program and convinced its populace not to follow that practice. Thus, no corrections would be possible at the Laurel level --- until we start getting inquiries from submitters, as I have.
Everyone has a right to an opinion as to what the College should permit, or shouldn't permit. If your opinion's strong enough, you might try to persuade, convince, or gently discourage your submitters when they suggest something in poor-but-legal style. When a practice is permitted by the Administrative Guidelines, however, it's not the place of any individual Kingdom College to disallow it. If badges, household names, and alternate personae are permitted, they should be permitted to everyone, in every Kingdom. Those who disagree with any given practice are welcome to open debate within the SCA College of Arms --- and in the meantime, exercise their salesmanship with their clients. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 6)
A question has arisen during a recent request for reblazon: when should an armorial submission require a miniature emblazon in the LOI? Obviously, for any new armory, or change of armory, the miniature emblazon is mandatory. But what about transfers? blazon corrections? requests for reblazon?
Taking the last first, a request for reblazon --- that is, a request that the registered (and presumably correct) blazon be changed to suit the submitter's preference --- should include a miniature emblazon. The newly submitted blazon, like the original, must be checked for accuracy. The College can't do that without a miniature emblazon.
Blazon corrections are an issue of accuracy, rather than preference, and are thus a bit thornier. If the registered emblazon has some obvious error --- a tincture omitted, say, or a word misspelled --- then the correction need not include a miniature emblazon. On the other hand, it needn't be in a Letter of Intent, either; the proper forum for such a correction is a letter to Laurel, with a copy to Morsulus. More extensive changes, involving disagreements about the correct way to blazon a design ("That's not couped! The proper term is humetty."), should involve the entire College --- and so should be in a Letter of Intent, and should include a miniature emblazon.
Finally, when armory is transferred between submitters, we don't mandate miniature emblazons. The armory is already registered, after all; this is a purely administrative action. On the other hand, such a transfer is an excellent opportunity to improve an old SCA blazon; for that reason, I like to see the miniature emblazon for the armory being transferred, even though it's not mandatory.
The cue here is the extent to which the College of Arms is involved. Minor grammatical corrections involve the College little; major changes to the blazon, be they corrections or requests for reblazon, involve the College considerably. The latter, therefore, should include the emblazon for the College's perusal. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 6-7)
A number of submissions in the last few weeks have shown me that there's some confusion in the College of Arms about the petitions needed from SCA branches. Two points, in particular, need to be clarified:
First, petitions must accompany the name and device submissions (be they new, resubmission, or change) for any SCA branch up to Baronial status. The petition serves as a measure of the populace's support for the proposed group name and device. (Principalities and Kingdoms must likewise show evidence of popular support for name and device submissions; but as they're larger, taking petitions becomes an unwieldly process. Polls are more often used for Principality and Kingdom submissions.) Only the name and device of the group are required to be accompanied by a copy of the petition, per the Administrative Guidelines. The Laurel Office doesn't require petitions for such submissions as the names of Orders, populace badges, and the like; they're nice to get, of course, and Kingdom Colleges may choose to require petitions with such submissions, but they're not mandatory at the CoA level.
Second, the petition should state, very clearly, exactly what the petitioners approve. We had a recent submission where the petition said, simply, "Petition" --- followed by signatures. I assume that everyone was honest in this case, that the petition was meant as support for the group name, and that all the signers knew it; but for all one could tell from the paperwork, the petition could have been for ice cream to be served at the next fighting practice. As evidence of popular support for the submission, it wasn't worth much.
Petitions should include, at the top, the items the petitioners are expected to support: the name and/or device to be submitted. Only that way can the document be considered evidence of support for that particular submission. If nothing else, common sense would prevent anyone from signing a blank petition; that's as risky as signing a blank check. Let's take a little more care in the form of the petitions sent to the College from now on; please make sure that they say, in black and white, that the petitioners knew what they were supporting. (20 August, 1993 Cover Letter (July, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
One of this month's submissions (Windwardshire) prompted some comments from, first, the Society Steward, and more recently, the new Society Seneschal. Their main concern was that a Kingdom's Seneschalate and College of Heralds should not be working at cross purposes: Kingdom Officers are empowered for the same purpose, the smooth running of the Kingdom --- and, ultimately, to facilitate the enjoyment of the Society's members.
The main concern here is with new or incipient groups. Duchess Sedalia, the Society Seneschal, spoke to me at Pennsic War about the issue: she was concerned that the College of Arms might register a name and device to a proto-group, only to have it dissolve away (but with the name and device protected in perpetuity). She wanted to know if there was some way wait until the group had proven itself before allowing them to register. I noted that many Kingdoms require an incipient group to have a name and device registered (or in the process) before they're considered official; moreover, if there's a problem with the name, it's far better to catch it early, when the group is new, not after they've used the name for years.
Both the Society Seneschal and I agree, however, on the need for communication between the Principal Herald and the Kingdom Seneschal. When a group first starts to form, the Seneschal should inform the Herald (so that advice can be offered on the new name and device, for instance). When a new group submits a name and device, the Herald should inform the Seneschal (who might know, from officers' reports, whether the group is viable or liable to soon disband). Duchess Sedalia agreed to send a plea to that effect to the Kingdom Seneschals; I in my turn am sending the plea to the College of Arms. If the Seneschal and the Herald simply keep each other informed, most of the potential problems concerning incipient group submissions will just fail to materialize. And isn't that a cheerful thought? (25 September, 1993 Cover Letter (August, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
At their October meeting, the Board of Directors confirmed that, as with titles and forms of address, Laurel King of Arms has authority over the regalia of the SCA-wide orders. The next step will be the codification and publishing of current regalia standards, which task falls on Master Da'ud's shoulders ...(30 November, 1993 Cover Letter (September, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
It is poor policy to give a canton, and an incipient canton at that, an heraldic title, but this is an internal matter for the kingdom involved. (East Kingdom, September, 1993, pg. 11)
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registrable Items
I'd like to continue joint registration of household names and badges. My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O. Moreover, to ensure that this confusion doesn't arise again, I propose to change the Section in the Administrative Handbook, Registerable Items: B.3, Household Names, to read:
"By convention, this designation is applied to the name of a group other than a Society branch or order, such as a household, guild, group fighting unit, etc. Such names may be registered either by an individual or by a Society branch, and armory may be associated with such names. In the case of a household registered by an individual, records dealing with the group's name or armory will be retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative; when the household is jointly registered by a couple, a cross-reference shall also be listed under the Primary Society Name of the other member of the couple."
The rest of the paragraph shall remain unchanged; and paragraphs D.3 and E.1 of the same Section shall be amended to refer to paragraph B.3, to include joint registration of fielded and fieldless badges as well as names. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
The household name and badge were twice submitted on the LOI: once under [the submitter's] name, and once under the name of [another submitter]. Per our current policy on joint badge registration (LoAR cover letter of 3 Aug 92), one of these gentles must be designated the primary badge-holder. [Name and badge attached to other name and returned for unrelated reasons]. (Ursus Imminere (Jane Falada of Englewood), October, 1992, pg. 28)
There's nothing to prevent an Order from having more than one badge; the Order of the Garter has multiple badges, and so does the SCA's Order of the Rose. (Barony of Caerthe, October, 1993, pg. 18)
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Registration Limit
While the current Rules and Administrative Guidelines do not explicitly permit a household to have multiple badges, neither do they explicitly prohibit it. After some thought, I've decided there's no reason a household shouldn't have as many badges as the Rules allow. Certainly, houses in period could have more than one badge --- a Scots clan, for instance, could have a crest-badge and a plant-badge. Our only restriction is that one person be the primary owner for all the household's badges --- which effectively limits the number of badges per household. (Yseult de Cherbourg, September, 1992, pg. 28)
ADMINISTRATIVE -- Rule Changes
Having read the discussions and commentary, I've decided to accept Lord Palimpsest's recommendations of 10 Dec 92, with some very minor changes to the examples. Thanks to all who lent their voices to the debate.
Rule X.4.a.i is amended to read:
Rule VIII.4.c is amended to read:
(15 January, 1992 Cover Letter (November, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
Lord Palimpsest, in his letter of 19 June 93, has formally recommended changing Rule X.2, the Difference of Primary Charge Rule, to extend (and clarify) the conditions under which it applies. I like his simplified wording, for the most part, but I believe it can be simplified even further if we note three facts:
Rule X.2 is therefore amended to read as follows:
This new wording also adds some further clarifying examples, and is more in line with our current definitions. In particular, it's more in line with our current definition of peripheral charge. I know there's been discussion in the commentary about whether peripheral charges can be primaries, whether they're always secondaries, whether they're always separate from other groups of secondaries, and so forth; some of the arguments presented are good, but I'm not yet persuaded to change our current definition of peripheral charges. If I were to change the current definition, it would require a more thorough overhaul of the Rules --- for instance, we'd probably want to add a new category to X.4, "Addition of Peripheral Charges", analogous to the current X.4.c for overall charges --- and I'd prefer it be done after complete discussion, not as a side-issue to this update of the Difference of Primary Charge Rule.
I intend to begin implementation of the revised Rule X.2 at the October Laurel meeting. My thanks to all who participated in the discussion, and especially to Lord Palimpsest for coordinating it and synthesizing a final Rule from it. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pp. 2-3)