[ANSTHRLD] Notes from the May 2012 LoAR Cover Letter

[tmcd at panix.com]

The May 2012 LoAR Cover Letter, just issued, has a fair amount of
significant rulings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**** From Laurel: Letters of Permission to Conflict ****

Letters of Permission and Blanket Letters of Permission must specify
the recipients of the permission in a way that Laurel can determine.
Neither "members of the household" nor "members of the barony" work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**** From Pelican and Wreath: Notes on Terminology in Rulings ****
**** From Pelican and Wreath: Submissions Analysis for May ****

It's the start of the SENA phase-in / RfS phase-out, through the
October 2012 decision meetings.  If a submission passes under either
rule set, it passes.  "If there is no decision text in an acceptance,
one may assume the registration was allowable under both rule sets."
In a ruling, "CD/DC" means that it has a CD under the RfS and a DC
under SENA.

There are stats for this month:

    * Passed under both sets of rules: 169 total, 90 names, 79 armory

    * Returned under both sets of rules: 20 total, 3 names, 17 armory

    * Passed under old rules, but not new: 6 total, 2 names, 4 armory
      style, 0 armory conflict

    * Passed under new rules, but not old: 21 total, 15 names, 0
      armory style, 6 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 81% success rate. Considered only under the
Standards for Evaluation, there would be an 88% success rate."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**** From Pelican: The Legal Name Allowance and Hyphenated Family Names ****

If you have a hyphenated legal surname, you can try for the
grandfather clause on one of the parts.

**** From Pelican: Some Names Resources (a series): Marital Names Part 2 ****

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    **** From Wreath: Unified Posture and Arrangement ****

    Section A3D2c of the Standards for Evaluation, Unity of Posture
    and Orientation, states:

         The charges within a charge group should be in either
         identical postures/orientations or an arrangement that
         includes posture/orientation (in cross, combatant, or in pall
         points outward, for example). A charge group in which
         postures for different charges must be blazoned individually
         will not be allowed without period examples of that
         combination of postures. Arrangements of charges which cannot
         be blazoned will not be allowed. Some standard arrangements
         for period charge groups are discussed in Appendix K.

    All of the examples given are of groups with the same charge
    type. But what about groups of mixed charge types?

    It seems to us best to apply the concept of "comparable postures",
    as described in section A5G7, which references Appendix L. In
    short, if the charges in a single charge group do not have
    comparable postures, they are not in violation of the "identical
    postures/orientations" part of the rule. The charge group as a
    whole must still be in a standard arrangement.

Examples follow.  Most notable:

    For example, _two swords in saltire and a lion_ is a mixed-type
    charge group consisting of inanimate charges and animate charges,
    which do not have comparable postures. However, the entire group
    is not in a single unified arrangement, but instead has the swords
    and the lion arranged separately. This is not an allowable
    arrangement under A3D2c, without further documentation of its use
    in period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**** From Wreath: Ermine Variants ****

The rules only mentioned the Big Four ermined tinctures: ermine,
erminois, counter-ermine, and pean.  Wreath listed some equivocal
period evidence, including _Les Blason des armoiries_, a heraldic
treatise.  But Palimpsest did not intend to exclude the others, and
neither does Wreath.

    ... Therefore, we hereby clarify that ermine variants in all tincture
    combinations are allowable without a step from period practice so
    long as the rule of contrast is followed.

    We propose a wording change to Appendix F of the Standards for
    Evaluation. It currently reads:

         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.

    We would like commentary on the following proposed change:

         The main heraldic tinctures are listed in A.3.B.1. Furs are
         treated as a single tincture; a fur may combine any color
         with any metal (for example, _gules ermined Or_, _vairy
         argent and sable_). Other heraldic tinctures may only be
         registered as part of an Individually Attested Pattern.