Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (1st year)
ProceduresWhile Laurel, and indeed, many on Laurel staff, have a great deal of respect for the expertise it took to create the emblazon in color on the submissions forms for this item (and the badge, just below) on the computer, the Administrative Handbook, General Procedures for Submissions, C.1.d., requires that "The emblazon of any armory [must] be depicted in a size adequate for complete [rendition] of details of the armory and for equitable application of the "across the field test". In general, this means that the field for an escutcheon should be approximately six inches in height and five inches wide at its [widest] point...." The emblazons on the forms submitted were considerably smaller [than] this, though large enough that it was not felt that this alone was sufficient reason for return in this case. Having now reminded everyone of the necessity for adequately sized emblazons, however, we will expect that such forms in the future will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Administrative Handbook. [4/94, p.13]
As the Laurel office is unable to consider alternate submissions, we were unable to register the documentable change they said they would accept. [1/94, p.18]
Furthermore, the conflicts cited in the prior return remain. (Indeed, the issue of the conflicts was not even addressed by the submitter, so even had the College accepted his style argument, this would have had to be returned.) [12b/93, p.10]
The evidence for support submitted with the device does not meet the requirements of the administrative handbook. Though it was signed by three quarters of the officers, it was also dated February 29, 1992. We need more timely evidence of support. [12b/93, p.14]
I find myself disturbed by what seems to be an increasing amount of commentary which is both dated and mailed well after the deadline for that commentary ... This situation cannot continue. ... As a consequence, I am going to have to be fairly strict on this. PRIMARY COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. REBUTTAL COMMENTARY MAILED OUT AFTER THE ANNOUNCED DEADLINE FOR THAT COMMENTARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE LAUREL MEETING. ... As the flip side of this particular coin, LoIs must be postmarked before the end of the month to be considered as having been produced in that month. ... In the cases of both LoCs and LoIs, I will be checking not only the postmarks on the letters and packets I receive, but what the commenting members of the College have to say about when an LoI/LoC was mailed and/or received. I am sorry to have to get nasty about this my first month in office, but it's a situation which is getting out of hand and cannot be allowed to continue in fairness to ALL the members of the College of Arms. [11/93]
[Returning John Quest.] Conflicts with Jonny Quest. (Yes, I know he's a cartoon character. He is also, based on the commentary and reactions among those attending the Laurel meeting, apparently sufficiently well-known to meet Baron Bruce's guidelines for conflict with cartoon characters. See Cover Letter of 5 December 1992, p. 2). The discussion in the LoI regarding the different derivations of John and Jonny are not really to the point. A significant percentage of people hearing the name John Quest will immediately think of the cartoon character (even the "non-herald" attending the Laurel meeting cited the cartoon character immediately upon hearing the name, with no other background or hints). [5/94, p.19]
[Registering a standard representation of Saint Agatha.] The College has registered standard depictions of saints before (the most recent being St. George slaying a dragon), and this has not been seen as "reserving to a person the use of the standard depiction of this saint". [6/94, p.4]
[Returning a badge for the Ember Herald.] There is a long-standing policy that badges for subsidiary offices which have a higher-level equivalent will not be registered. The subsidiary offices are to use the badge registered for the higher-level office. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Lauretta da Stellafessa.] Stellafessa was given as Italian for Rivenstar. However, the grandfather clause (RfS II.5.) does not apply to translations ("only the actual name element from the originally registered submission is covered by this permission"), and neither "stellafessa" nor "rivenstar" would be likely to be acceptable on its own without reference to the name of the Barony in which she resides. [6/94, p.15]
[Returning Ryuugatani, Shire of.] There was a fair amount of commentary with the belief that a Japanese place-name does not appear to fall within the defined scope of the Society, which is pre-17th Century Western culture (RfS I.1. See also "Scope of the Society: Period and Culture" in the Organizational Handbook, pp. 74-75). "Its domain includes Europe and areas that had contact with Europe during this period." (RfS I.1.) It was noted that while there was clearly some contact in very late period between Europe and Japan, and evidence that some few Japanese actually visited Europe, the contact between Europe and Japan was not great enough to justify a Japanese place-name in pre-17th C. Europe. [6/94, p.17]
[Returning {Fieldless} A cloudless natural rainbow in the shape of a crescent inverted and overall a phoenix head of flames, proper.] While the grandfather clause (RfS VII.8.) applies to originally registered elements and motifs, it does not then allow registration of different charges similarly treated. In this case, a phoenix of flames is grandfathered to the submitter, but not a phoenix' head, which is considered an entirely different charge. [4/94, p.16]
The Grandfather Clause has been held before to apply to armory changes where the new armory has identical conflicts to the previously registered armory. [2/94, p.15]
No documentation was presented for the byname beyond a statement that it is the name of the submitter's household. ... Despite a few registrations of the byname from several years ago, we are unwilling to extend the grandfather clause beyond immediate family members. [2/94, p.17]
I was distressed to see the number of names submissions whose sole documentation consisted of the bald assertion that "{X} is found in Hanks & Hodges {Surnames/Given Names} on page {x}". Except in a few cases, there were not even any accompanying photocopies of the appropriate pages. This situation is not acceptable. While Hanks and Hodges' works may be a great place to start in searching for name documentation, they are NOT the place to end that search. Very few of the entries have dates of any kind. There are many modern forms included in the entries. There are even, as there are in many general works of this kind, some errors, sometimes quite glaring. For all of these reasons, Hanks and Hodges' books are not acceptable as adequate documentation or support for an SCA name. They are especially not acceptable as the only documentation or support for an SCA name. [12a/93c]
[A major revision to the rules for names, RFS X.4.j and the Administrative Handbook. In order to preserve the formatting, the full text appears as Appendix A.] [4/94c, pp.2-12]
The subtext of RfS X.4.d is revised in part to update the example given therein ("Or, three bulls' heads gules" differs from "Or, two bulls' heads sable and another gules", but not from "Or, two bulls' heads gules and another sable") to reflect the precedent set in the September 6, 1990 Cover Letter to the effect that tincture, type, and posture changes to the basemost of three charges arranged two and one are worth a CD, though at most one CD can be obtained even for multiple changes to this charge. As a consequence, and following Lord Palimpsest's wording, such example is revised to read:
[12b/93c]
The title Dame is now available as an alternate to Mistress for any female members of the Laurels, Pelicans, or Chivalry who wishes to use it. It had previously been reserved for female knights, but since every female knight so far has preferred to use Sir, it was felt that this strict a limitation was no longer necessary. [6/94c, p.2]
Table of Contents of Precedents of Da'ud Ibn Auda, 2nd Tenure