Below are the results of the April 2003 Letter of Acceptance and Return from the Laurel King of Arms. This website is not authoritative, but is an accurate reproduction of the text of the April LoAR.

Cover Letter (excerpt)

From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All

We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis available to us at this time, it is our understanding that ..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this and word statements of current knowledge as if they were Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as well to insert the disclaimer.

We require your help to know "the truth". The current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest best attempt at determining "the truth".

Bedes College. Branch name and device. Azure, an open book within a laurel wreath and on a chief Or a lion dormant sable.

Submitted as Bede's College, we have removed the apostrophe to follow period examples.

Castellana Alcon. Device. Purpure, a Bengal tiger sejant affronty Or marked sable between in chief two scimitars addorsed argent.
Chiara Grassi. Name and device. Azure, in fess two roses slipped and leaved within an orle argent.
Drahomira von Augsburg. Badge. (Fieldless) A fleur-de-lys per pale purpure and Or.
Marko Evanovich Panfilov. Name (see RETURNS for device).
Robert Blackhawk. Badge. Azure, a chevron embattled counter-embattled and a bordure argent.

This does not conflict with Aelesia Emelyne Couchur, Azure, a chevron embattled argent. There is a CD for adding the bordure. Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD between them.

Scandlán Cáel mac Lonáin. Name and device. Argent, a fess between three ravens sable.

Nice device!

Wilo mac Donnchada. Name (see RETURNS for device).

Submitted as Wilo ingen Donnchada, Wilo was documented only as a masculine given name. The byname ingen Donnchada means 'daughter of Duncan'. Gaelic patronymic bynames were used literally in period. Therefore, this name was not registerable as submitted since a man could not be a daughter. Since the submitter marked "don't care" for gender on her form, we have changed the byname to the masculine form mac Donnchada in order to register this name.

RETURNS

Marko Evanovich Panfilov. Device. Vert, an owl contourny argent within an orle Or.

Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran, Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the small held charges.

Tatiana Pavlovna Sokolova. Badge. (Fieldless) A cinquefoil pierced purpure.

Conflict with Alyanora of Vinca, Argent, a periwinkle proper. Periwinkles are effectively cinquefoils and given no type difference from cinquefoils. There is no tincture difference: per the September 1996 LoAR, "The tincture of the periwinkle is somewhere between blue [and] purple, and therefore both azure and purpure flowers could potentially conflict with it."

We have blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced because we believe that it is standard SCA practice to blazon this detail. Piercing of cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in some portions of our period, and is not worth difference.

Volker Ælfwine. Device. Per chevron ployé argent and sable, a winged serpent displayed vert.

Conflict with Diolach Macaree, reblazoned in the Æthelmearc section of this LoAR as Argent, a python glissant palewise wings displayed vert maintaining in its mouth a rose azure slipped and leaved vert. There is one CD for changing the field. There is no difference for removing the small maintained rose. There is no difference given between bird-winged and bat-winged serpents: "[a winged serpent vs a bat-winged tree python] The change to the type of wings is too slight to count for the necessary second [CD]." [i.e. there is not a significant difference between a bird-winged and a bat-winged creature] (LoAR January 1995 p. 14). In considering this ruling, it is worth remembering the fact that the wyvern, a closely related monster, was often drawn with bird wings in early heraldic art.

Wilo mac Donnchada. Device. Per pall Or, argent and sable, a flame gules and two wolves sejant ululant respectant counterchanged sable and argent.

The device conflicts with the Barony of Wastekeep, Per pall Or, argent and azure, a laurel wreath vert, a tree blasted and eradicated sable, and a grey granite tower proper. There is a single CD by RfS X.4.e for changing the type of the charges, but not sufficient difference under RfS X.2. That rule states that "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially changed... For purposes of this rule, simple armory is defined as armory that has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no overall charges." The armory under submission is simple, but the Barony of Wastekeep's armory is not simple, as it has three types of charge directly on the field. As RfS X.2 cannot be used to call these two pieces of armory clear, we are forced to fall back on RfS X.4 for further analysis. RfS X.4.a does not give a CD for changing only one-third of the field tincture.
There is no difference for changing the tincture of the charge group. A grey granite tower proper is effectively argent, so only one-third of the charge group has changed in tincture (the charge in chief).
On resubmission, the submitter should be careful to avoid conflict with the following armory: Duibheasa ní Chéileacháin, Per pale argent and sable, two wolves sejant respectant ululant, in chief a roundel all counterchanged, and Marina of Vinewood, Per pall azure, argent and sable, a sprig of grape vine argent and two dogs salient respectant counterchanged.