November 3, 1982 A.S. XVII

TO: The Members of the College of Arms

FROM: Master Wilhelm von Schlilssel, Laurel King of Arms Greetings:

Enclosed is this month's LOA&R, with 167 acceptances, 73 rejections, and 2 pending submissions, for a total of 242. My next meeting will be Sunday, November 21, 1982, at which time I will process the following 9 LoIs: West (7/31), Atenveldt (7/31), Middle (8/1), East (8/5), Caid (8/12), West (8/12), Middle (8/12), Meridies (8/19), and Atenveldt (8/29). Please comment on them in that order if you combine your comments on your LoC. The following meeting will be on Sunday, December 19, 1982, at which time I will process the following 7 LoIs: Atlantia (8/31), Meridies (9/9), Middle (9/10), An Tir (9/18), Ansteorra (9/20), East (9/25), West (9/28), and the two pending appeals on Sakura Tetsuo and Edward of Effingham from the latter's letter of 9/28/82. What with everyone catching up on branch names and backlogs, the workload has been heavy. This month sets a new record for submissions. It is more than half of the full year's total for 1976.

There was an error on the CoA mailing list sent out last month. The new Dragon Principal Herald's correct address is 159 E. Granville Road, Worthington, OH 43085. 1 hereby remove the Blue Tyger Herald from the mailing list. Lord Cinhil has not commented in over four months. Everyone else is commenting. My thanks to you all; your comments are needed. So that the mailing list may be accurate, if any of you have corrections, no matter how minor, to your address as listed on the mailing list, please get them in to me before the December meeting. If there are sufficient corrections, a new mailing list will be sent out.

Solar has brought to my attention the occasion in April 1978 when King Koris gave an Award of Arms to Sir Ton the Traveler's dog, Knossos MacChlurain du Grae. The heralds there are still upset and she asks what to do about it. Corpora, Section VI.A.I.i., "Privileges of the Crown," states: i. The right to make Awards of Arms to deserving persons without restriction. Legally, only humans are persons and so the Crown does not have the right to make an Award of Arms to an animal or to an inanimate object. There is precedent for treating a group or corporation as a person and so the Crown can give an Award of Arms to a guild, household, College, or other non-branch group. (SCA branches are already armigerous.) It is my opinion that King Koris's action, while quite possibly humorous and possibly appropriate in some way, was not a legal award and therefore said Award of Arms should not be listed on the Order of Precedence. The Aten Principal Herald has my permission to remove the dog's Award of Arms from, the Atenveldt OP if she deems such action advisable. Certainly it will not appear on the SCA OP. Does anyone else know of any more such awards?

Another question concerns multiple awards. There are three levels of arms in the SCA: arms by Award, Grant, or Patent, in increasing order of precedence. Once you receive a particular level of arms, you cannot later receive that same or lower level, as such action would have no meaning or effect. Thus, a person who receives an Award of Arms is an armiger. If a King incorrectly later gives that armiger a second Award of Arms, that second action is null and void because it has no effect: the person was already an armiger. The ceremony of the presentation of the second Award of Arms did serve the purpose of expressing the King's desire to reward the armiger, and so was of some effect, but the second Award of Arms should not be listed in the Order of Precedence.

Similarly, if a Grant of Arms holder receives a later Award of Arms or Grant of Arms, the later action is of no effect and should not be listed. If a holder or a Patent of Arms later receives an Award of Arms, a Grant of Arms, or another Patent of Arms, then the later action is of no effect and should not be listed. You can only receive one Patent of Arms. A man who is a Knight, a Pelican, a Laurel, a Viscount, a Count, and a Duke has exactly one Patent of Arms, not six.

The Royal Peerages (Duke/Duchess, Count/ess, Earl, Viscount/ess) do not carry automatic Patents of Arms anymore. If a kingdom has chosen not have such titles carry a Patent of Arms, then, while a Royal Peerage has higher precedence than a member of one of the orders that carry Patents of Arms (Chivalry, Laurel, Pelican), a Royal Peer who is later admitted to one of these Orders would receive a Patent of Arms. For example, in Meridies the Royal Peerages are non-armigerous titles. The Royal Peers hold arms by other award. If a knight were to become King there, then upon leaving the throne he would be a Count and would have a Patent of Arms from being knight, not from being a Count. If he later were admitted to the Order of the Laurel, then he would not receive another Patent of Arms, as he would already have one. His lady, who was an armiger, but not a member of any of the orders of the peerage before she became Queen, would, upon becoming a Countess, still have Arms by Award, but would have the precedence of a Countess. If she were to later be admitted to the Order of the Laurel, then she would receive a Patent of Arms, as she did not already have one. Her Award of Arms would be promoted to a Patent of Arms.

Note that, under Corpora, it is possible to be a Royal Peer and not be armigerous at all. I recommend that each kingdom adopt a kingdom law that Royal Peerages carry with them a Grant of Arms, if the recipient is not already a holder of a Grant or Patent of Arms. A person who has been King or Queen, Prince or Princess, has certainly earned a Grant of Arms. The possibility of a non-armigerous Royal Peer should be eliminated.

In a similar vein, a person can only be admitted to a specific order once, unless s/he first resigns from the order. Thus if a person is admitted to an order once and then later on is admitted again, the second ceremony is on no effect. The person is already a member. The second admission should not be listed on the Order of Precedence.

Note that, if a Count becomes King again, he then is raised from Count to Duke. While it is acceptable to list the date he became a Count on the OP-as being a Count is a prerequisite for being a Duke-the Duke should not be addressed as Duke and Count but only as Duke. Thus, Duke James Greyhelm should never be addressed or referred to as Duke Count Viscount Sir James Greyhelm, but only as Duke James Greyhelm. The Count and Viscount appear on the OP as a matter of historical record, in the same way that the date I receive my Awards of Arms is still listed after my name even though I now have a Patent of Arms. My Awards of Arms was promoted to a Grant of Arms and then to a Patent of Arms. At this point I have an Patent of Arms, not an Award of Arms + a Grant of Arms + a Patent of Arms. You are only made a armiger once. Once you have the right to bear arms, you are never given it again, because you already have it. Instead, your precedence is increased by having your right to arms raised up a higher level. You do not get to register a second coat of arms.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the SCA has asked me to remind all Principal Heralds that they are responsible for keeping financial records for all monies given to the Kingdom College as submission fees or other donations, and for keeping track of the spending or disbursement of these monies. At the end of the year, the Principal Herald must present a financial report for the year to the Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer and send me a copy. The submission fees count as income to the SCA and must be counted. It is up to the Kingdom Principal Herald and the Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide how to handle this financial statement. Make sure that you receive a copy of the current annual financial report form from your Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer and that you fill it out properly and on time.

The SCA Chancellor of the Exchequer would also prefer that each branch herald keep a financial record of all fees collected, all fees transferred up the line, and all fees spent for office expenses. This record is then given to the branch's Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the financial records of the other branch officers. A copy of the record is sent to the Principality and Principal Heralds. The Principality Herald keeps a record of all fees sent in from members and from branch heralds, all fees transferred up to the Principal Herald, and all monies spent for office expenses. At year's end, the Principality Herald fills out a financial form and gives it to the Principality Chancellor of the Exchequer, making sure that all branch heralds within the Principality have sent in their financial reports and that the branch reports and the Principality reports agree on fees transferred. A copy of this report goes to the Principal Herald, who in turn fills out a financial form for the Office of the Principal Herald, making sure that all branches have reported and that the fees for submissions are listed correctly. Submission fees should only be counted as income once. After that, they are transfers within the SCA. The Principal Herald gives this form to the Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer and sends a copy to me.

Note that this means that once a year you have an extra chance to get a report from your branch heralds. They will be bugged by their local Chancellors of the Exchequer to report, so there is a better chance the reports will be made. In some kingdoms, this system will not be the best system, possibly because the kingdom already has a different, working system in place. The important thing is that the financial reports are made and turned in by somebody and that the heralds and the Chancellors of the Exchequer cooperate with each other. One alternative is to have all fees sent to the Principality or Principal Heralds and then have the branch herald's portion rebated to the branch herald. The Principality Herald would keep the financial record, not the branch heralds, and the fees would count as income at the principality level. The rebates to the branch heralds would count as expenses, since one assumes they will all be spent. The portion of the fees sent on up to the Principal Herald would be a transfer of funds. The SCA Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sending detailed instructions to the Kingdom Chancellors of the Exchequer, so please contact your Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer and arrange some system of reporting.

On December 1, 1982, the requirement goes into effect that all warranted heralds of any rank must submit their SCA names. They have a three-month grace period after that date or after they have become warranted, whichever occurs later. If their name is rejected, they have a three-month grace period to resubmit a new SCA name. All titled Pursuivants and Heralds after that date must submit their device or arms. They have a three-month grace period after December 1, 1982, or a six-month grace period after they are warranted, whichever is later. If the device is rejected, they have a six-month grace period to resubmit. The idea is for the heralds to set a good example for the populace, not to kick out a lot of heralds. The enforcement of this requirement is left to the Kingdom Principal Heralds. Use common sense, but try to get them to satisfy the requirement. I understand that initially there will be problems. Do your best.

In a Letter of Comment, when you state that a submission is in conflict with something, give the full name, blazon, and source for the conflict. Do not just list part of the name or part of the blazon, and be sure to give us your source so we know where the conflict came from and whether it is an SCA or mundane or fantasy conflict.

Based upon the College's responses, I have decided to continue to not allow a person to register his/her mundane arms in the SCA. Instead, I will do as the College of Arms in England does and allow a differenced arms to be registered. If a person today goes to the English College of Arms and shows that he is of English descent and has inherited the right to bear a coat of arms that was borne by an ancestor, the English CoA will matriculate the coat of arms but with a mark of difference. This protects the College from later discovering that somebody else is the true heir to the undifferenced arms, and it allows the College to set its mark on the arms. We will do the same. If a person can prove that s/he has the mundane right to a coat of arms, then s/he may register in the SCA a device that is differenced from that mundane coat of arms by as little as a minor point of difference. This will be treated on a case-by-case basis, and in some cases a major point of difference may be required.

The arms and devices in the SCA, while registered to the mundane people, are registered under their SCA names for use in the SCA. They do not constitute their mundane legal arms. SCA members in foreign countries should be aware of the distinction. In Scotland, the display of arms not matriculated with the Lyon King of Arms is illegal, I believe, so SCA members in Scotland should be careful not to claim that their SCA devices are legal mundane arms. The SCA College of Arms makes no claim that its arms are valid outside of the SCA. Within the U.S., which has no armorial law, SCA members can pretty much do as they like with their registered SCA arms.

Regarding the question of the use of multiple languages in SCA names, we currently have a rule that states that branch names may use no more than two languages and that personal names may use no more than three languages. The question I raised was, Should there be any restriction on the languages involved in multiple-language names? Based upon the reaction from the CoA, I have decided that multiple languages shall be restricted to a combination that had a reasonable chance to occur. You do not have to prove that such a combination did occur in period, but there has to be a reasonable chance that such a combination could have occurred. The operative word here is "reasonable."

You can combine any two or three of the languages in Europe because they were all in contact and there is therefore a reasonable chance of finding such a combination. However, when you look further afield, the probability drops. A name with two languages has an easier time defending itself than a name with three languages, since three-language names were in themselves rare and adding the rarity of three languages to the rarity of combining widely separated languages can result in a less-than-reasonable chance. The case of Ting ... McPhee showed a situation where there really wasn't a reasonable chance for those two languages (Tibetan and Scots Gaelic) to have-been so combined in an in-period name.

In the case of three languages, a combination of Iroquois, Spanish, and Arabic would fail the test. There is a reasonable chance for a Spanish/Iroquois combination or a Spanish/Arabic combination. Combining them to form a Spanish/ Iroquois/Arabic name would not be reasonable, as it would stretch probability too far. Multiple-language names will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Any combination with a reasonable chance of having occurred will pass, but anything that is clearly unreasonable won't.

Based upon the reaction from the CoA, the criterion for SCA branch names will be that they cannot duplicate place names of any significance in the mundane world or in fiction-or mythology. The standard for this shall be whether a mundane place name appears in a major atlas. My two standard references shall be The Times Atlas of World History (ed. Geoffrey Barraclough, London: Times Books Limited & Maplewood, N.J.; Hammond, Inc., 1976 and 1979) and Ambassador World Atlas (comp. De Blij, et al., Maplewood, N.J.L Hammond, Inc., 1982(, which each have an index with over 100,000 entries. Any place listed in either of these cannot be used as a branch name. Place names in fiction or mythology will have to be treated as: we'll protect them if we know about them. We shall maintain the exception for descriptive names. If a branch contains four rivers, it can call itself Four Rivers, even if there are other such places in the world.

The degree of difference required will depend upon the size/importance/fame of the conflicting place. For minor towns and places, the requirement shall be that a branch name cannot be identical to the name or differ only by a minor spelling change. For major places (cities, counties), the branch name cannot be a direct translation either, as most place names of large places were translated when listed on maps in another country. In England the capital of the German state of Bavaria was known as Munich, but in Deutschland the capital of Bayern was München. For the most well-known places, such as England or Valhalla, you should avoid indirect translations such as Saxonland or Great Warrior's Hall. In most cases, the addition of a word to a mundane place name shall be sufficient. (Look at New York vs. York, New England vs. England.) To my knowledge there is no New Paris, and so a branch could be the Shire of New Pairs.

SCA branch names shall be treated as well-known, and so a new branch may not adopt a name that is a translation or spelling variation of another branch name, nor may it simply add one word. The substitution of one word for another shall be sufficient. In addition, one branch can give permission to another to use a translation, variant, or one-word-added form of that branch's name. They still cannot be identical or differ only by a minor spelling change, even with permission.

Back in June I raised the question of household names. In the past, we have been listing household names when we passed a household badge. We have been applying our name rules to these household names, but we haven't been protecting them. With the new Armorial, which will cross-reference badge lsiting, we will be able to protect household names. I raised the question, should we? The response was that we should either discontinue listing the names or else protect them. I asked which should be done and, now that I have heard from most of the College, the consensus is-by a two-to-one margin-we should list household names and protect them to some extent. Certainly there is support among the membership of the SCA for listing household names, because we keep getting submissions for household badges with household names attached.

I have therefore decided that we shall continue to list household names. We will not register household names alone, but only in combination with a household badge. The reason for this has to do with the main purpose of the CoA. Our main purpose is to promote the quality and use of heraldry in the SCA by encouraging everyone to adopt and register SCA names and devices. After the registration of names and devices, in importance comes things as registering badges, writing and directing ceremonies, handling courts, doing field heraldry, etc. Teaching and educating heralds and the populace in heraldry is a means to the end of promoting the quality and use of heraldry, and assists the other functions above.

The CoA is not in the business of regulating non-formal activities among members. We are not concerned whether or not a member adopts one or more alternative personae, whether or not s/he forms a household, whether or not s/he adopts a non-nobiliary titles as part of his/her persona history, or any other such activity. We only become officially aware of such actions when they are brought to our formal attention. Thus a herald is forced to deal with an assumed non-nobiliary title if the person who has assumed it is to be announced at court. If a person submits a badge for an alternate persona or a household badge with a household name attached, then the College is forced to take notice. We do not go out into the pavilions and search out alternate personas or household names and demand that they conform to our rules.

Having something listed and protected in the Armorial is a privilege, not a right. The College of Arms chooses to not regulate or register alternate personae or household names except when they are submitted in combination with a badge. Since we will be processing and listing the badge anyway, we are willing--as a courtesy and privilege--to list the alternate persona name or household name as well. To keep matters from getting out of hand, we have a limit of one alternate persona name per person. Anything we list in the Armorial and Ordinary will be considered by others to be formally approved and registered, and therefore we have to require that alternate persona names and household names satisfy our rules on names. Alternate persona names must satisfy the same rules as regular personal SCA names.

If an alternate persona name or a household name doesn't satisfy our rules, then we refuse to list it in the Armorial, but we go on to process the badge anyway, since the badge is our main concern. Ideally, if we decide an alternate persona name or a household name violates our rules, then the submittor will change it so it does satisfy the rules. Unfortunately, there will always be those who go on using the names anyway. The College has enough trouble trying to get people to not use rejected devices and primary SCA names. It is not worth the trouble it causes to pursue rejected alternate persona names and household names as well, although formally, of course, we still hold that they really ought to change.

With that in mind, here are the rules for household names: They must satisfy the same rules as branch names, except that they may use Sindarin so long as we allow personal names to use Sindarin. This means that household names must satisfy the following, as given in Sections VI and VII of the Rules for Submissions:

1. All languages, names, and other words used in a household name must be either in period or in keeping with period naming practices.

    1. All words, grammar, and usage must be correct for the languages) used.

3. Household names shall not exceed 50 characters in length, including spaces.

4. Household names may not conflict with other SCA household names, SCA branch names, or with significant place names in the mundane world, fiction, or mythology. Household names may not conflict with the surnames of clans or noble houses in the mundane world, fiction, or mythology.

5. Household names must be submitted along with a household badge and are listed under a person's primary Society name.

6. No more than two languages may be used in a household name.

7. The name of a guild or any other group other than a personal household should have the approval of the members of that group and some documentary evidence of that approval needs to be submitted.

Now let us look at the requirements for difference to avoid conflicts. I will use the same two atlases mentioned above as standard references for mundane place names. Any mundane place name not included in those two atlases is too minor to worry about. A household name may not be identical to any significant place name in the mundane world, past or present. If the household name is a descriptive name (Fallingtree House because there is a leaning tree next to the house), then it merely must not be identical to any important (large or well-known) mundane place name. A household name may not be identical to any important fictional or mythological place name or to any SCA branch name or any registered household, clan, guild, or other group name in the SCA. A household name may not be identical to important mundane or fictional family or clan names. (This means things like the surnames of noble houses, dynastic names, names of Scottish clans, etc.) The person who first registers a certain household name may grant to more than one other household the right to register the same household name. A Society name in the form of "N of House X." where House X is a registered household name, would not be allowed unless the person were actually a member of House X or the head of House X gave permission. A Society name in the form of "N of X" would not conflict with the household name "House X" because of the difference from the addition of the word "House."

Two names are identical if they are in fact identical, letter for letter, or they differ only by a variation in spelling, or they sound the same. In the case of important mundane and fictional place names, one must also avoid an exact translation, as those places' names exist in most translations. Translation of an SCA household name shall be sufficient difference for another SCA household name. The addition, subtraction, or replacement of one or more words is sufficient difference for a household name in most cases. Household names thus follow the same rules as branch names but have a more relaxed difference requirement. Note that it is also true that an SCA branch name cannot be identical to a registered SCA household name. Let me again remind you that the above are the requirements that a household name must satisfy in order to be listed in the SCA Armorial & Ordinary along with the household badge. Heralds should not run out and tell any household whose name doesn't satisfy these rules that they should stop using that name. Rather, these are the rules that a household name must satisfy in order to be listed and protected in the Armorial. A household is not required to submit its household name if it doesn't want to.

A question has come up that I would like to ask everybody's opinion on. We have in the past held that the use of diminutives of a formal name may not be used unless it can be shown that the diminutive was itself used as a separate given name in period. The standard practice in names is for a person to be given a formal given name at birth and then be known by various diminutives during various periods. Thus a girl could be named Elizabeth. Her friends could call her Liz, Beth, Betsy, Bess, or any other diminutives of Elizabeth. When she was little she could be called by the second diminutives of Lizzie, Bethy, or Bessie. Her formal name through all this is still Elizabeth, which is what would go into her record of birth. You wouldn't find the diminutives used as a formal name. Some diminutives did become independent names, and we allow these. The problem comes when you look in a name book and see a name listed as derived from a diminutive of another name that was in period. Was the diminutive itself used in period independently? This is frequently not mentioned.

The question I ask is, Should we make things easier for people by allowing the first diminutive (not the second) of a period given name to be registered as a person's formal SCA name, or should we continue as we have been doing, allowing diminutives only when there is reasonable evidence that they were used in period as separate names. I shall continue to hold to our present policy during our discussion. I would like to remind you that allowing the use of charged cartouches is still under discussion.

There has been some confusion over the outline rule. This rule only applies between SCA devices and badges. Difference of field and color of charge is sufficient difference between SCA devices and mundane arms, except for things like the arms of England. Difference of field and color of charge is not sufficient between two SCA devices unless there is a divided field or fur difference involved. This is because a simple change of color of the field and the charges leaves the outline the same. As everyone has the right to use an untinctured outline of his/her arms as a seal, in order to avoid exact duplications of seals there needs to be some difference in the outline. If the difference of field is to change from azure to vair, then the outline will not be identical because the vair pattern would still show up in the seal. Generally, difference of field and color of charge is sufficient between SCA badge and SCA device, unless there is a sufficient complexity of number or type of charges or arrangement of charges that remain the same that cause too much visual similarity.

To give some examples, a badge consisting of Azure, a mace Or is sufficiently different from a device consisting of Gules, a mace argent. If we change the badge to Azure, six maces conjoined in estoile Or and the device to Gules, six maces conjoined in estoile argent, then we have a very distinctive and unusual combination of charges (six maces conjoined in estoile). In such a case, the two are too visually similar, even though technically they have sufficient number of points of difference.

I would like to put in a plea for everybody to get their comments in to me on Letters of Intent I am considering a week before the day I will consider them. That way, if the mail is slow, I will still get the LoCs in time to be able to read them before the meeting. Too many times I finish a meeting on Sunday (or Saturday this time) and on Monday I receive an LoC with vital information that I wish I had had when I processed the LoI it commented on. Sometimes I get the LoC as late as Wednesday, after I have mailed off the LOA&R. Please be sure to allow a week for the mail and a few days for me to read the letter ahead of time. Otherwise, all of your time and effort may go for nothing, as I won't be able to use your comments. I tell everyone two months ahead of time what LoIs I will be processing on what day in which order. You have an average of three months to comment on an Lol. You should be able to get your LoCs in to me on time without sending them Priority or Express Mail or mailing them the day before the meeting or calling me up to read them to me at the meeting. For those of you who get the comments in early, many thanks.

The results are in and, by a two-to-one margin, the winning 1983 Symposium bid is the Atlantian bid for April 29/May 2, 1983, at the St. James Episcopal Church, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. The chairman is the Triton Principal Herald, Minowara Kiritsubo-no-hime-gime. The Guest of Honor is Mr. John P. Brooke-Little, the Norroy and Ulster King of Arms from the England College of Arms. The Editor of the Proceedings will be Master Vuong Manh. The Autocrat will be Lady Patruska Vozon d'Angoumois. The Headcook will probably be Viscount Tojenareum Grenville of Devon. The Triton Principal Herald will be sending out further information later. I would like to see an immediate call for papers plus a series of progress reports sent to the College and a general advertisement in the newsletters. I toured the site with Triton on my way to the Meridies Symposium and it looks like a good site. I hope to see many of you there.

As for the other questions on the symposium questionnaire, by a 3:1 margin the responders wanted a symposium held every year, rotating around the country. The most favored dates were either in conjunction with Pennsic if held nearby to Pennsic or else in September/October so as to avoid summer heat and the summer tourney season. The next choice was April/May, again to avoid summer heat. Nobody wanted winter, and some wanted summer. There was an even split on whether or not to have the symposium on a weekend adjacent to a nearby major event. The preferred duration was 2 1/2 days, give or take half a day. There was an even split on multiple programming. I conclude that the favored solution is to have no more than two activities at one time, and only if the attendance warrants it. One should be advanced heraldry and one basic, so as to allow those who want basic heraldry to get it without forcing those who want more advanced topics to have to sit through the basics. There was a split on location, with some wanting cabin camping, some wanting a cheap hotel, and some wanting a hall and crash space. Nobody wanted pavilion/tent camping. The items people did not want were fighting or lists, non-heraldic items, mundanity, politics, excessive basics, D&D, an arts faire, and a long court.

There were many desired items. The most popular were a College of Arms meeting, a revel, a feast, limited presentation (not just reading) of papers, workshops on blazoning and emblazoning, and heraldic contests. Tours of the area should be organized outside of the days of the symposium. If there is to be a court, it should be a short welcoming court, possibly as part of a discussion on managing courts. The following is a list, in no particular order, of the panels, seminars, lectures, and workshops that were suggested by respondents for future Symposia to consider:

Heraldic Rules; Procedures; Teaching Heralds; Ceremonies; Protocol; Courtly Diction; Innovation: What Is Creative?; How to Consult- demonstration courts; Medieval Heraldic Style; unstructured discussion; question-and-answer sessions; Real World Heraldry; Field Projection/ Enunciation; How to Pronounce Names; Lists Administration; Basic Court Operation; Regalia; Points of Difference; Non-English Heraldry; History of Heralds/Heraldry; Heraldic Costumery; SCA Heraldic Philosophy; Trends in SCA Heraldry; presentations of rolls of corporate arms from each kingdom; herald's help table; Relations between Heralds and SCA Members; Displays of Heraldry; Heraldic Administration; Heraldic Artistry; Blazoning, Medieval Heralds' Duties; Documenting Names; Educating the Populace, Famous Heraldry; Oriental and Islamic Symbolism; research methods; heraldic bazaar; English College of Arms compared to SCA College of Arms; Order of Precedence workshop; Japanese Mon; proper form for device submission; Courtesy; Review of Heraldry Books.

If you have any further ideas or suggestions, send them to the Triton Principal Herald. I would like to call now for bids for the 1984 Heraldry Symposium. I note that, if it were to be held in September/October, there would be a gap of 17 months between the 1983 and 1984 Symposia, thereby allowing people who attend the 1983 Symposium to recover and prepare and save money for the 1984 Symposium. Please read my April 1982 LOA&R cover letter wherein I list what I would like to see in a symposium bid. I would like to receive preliminary bids (a statement that you are definitely interested in making a bid) by the end of 1982, and the formal bids by March 1, 1983, so I can send out a questionnaire before the April 1983 Symposium.

Pray believe, my Lords and my Ladies, that I remain your servant,

Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel

Laurel King of Arms