Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:13:43 -0500 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...

Good people, I recommend me to you. Tadhg writes:

> There IS a consensus regarding what is "useful" with respect to heraldry
> in the SCA; Arval just disagrees with it, apparently because it doesn't
> include everything that was ever done in period in one big grab-bag.

I believe you are overstating your point. With each new Laurel comes a 
different interpretation of the rules as to what they feel is important.
People in the College argue all the time as to the usefulness of certain
rules and what can be done to make them more useful. Thus we have rule 
changes. Not everyone agrees with those changes. There really is no
consensus; never has been one. I don't expect that to change.

> One of Laurel's oft-repeated maxims is "We follow the general practices,
> not the exceptions", and red bends and chiefs on blue fields were
> exceptions, not general practices; considered in the context of western
> European heraldry as a whole, regional practices such as green mounts on
> blue fields, however much they may have been the height of fashion in
> Hungary or wherever, were still exceptions rather than general practices.

The comment of Hungary makes no sense. Different areas had different 
flavors to their heraldic display. If a person has a Hungarian persona,
and likes the heraldry of their chosen country/period then what is the
basis for the CoA to state that it was just a fashion and not a general
practice. The evidence points to it being a general practice in Hungary.
 
> I have made a modest contribution in that directio with my "Ten Word
> Blazon Test", the rationale for which is "if they did it a lot, they had a
> term for it; if it takes you a lot of words to describe it, then they
> didn't have a term for it, and so they probably didn't do it a lot, and so
> it probably isn't good style".

A question. Why is it that when other countries have words for particular
things, but since those words translate to a long string in English, we 
still use the English for the term? It would be much more exact to use the
'foreign' term. And much more 'useful'.

What the rules are there for is to make a herald's job easier for judging
a submission as a period design. If the submitter gives evidence to support
a different period standard, then that device should be accepted and maybe
a rules change is in order.

For example, when enough evidence and support was gathered for words being
on both Spanish and Arabic heraldry, when the rules were re-written, it 
allowed words on devices.

The CoA is full of motion and difference of opinion. It is not static, even
when it comes to interpreting the rules. Many peoples goals are for a slow
drift toward more period heraldry. Some, like Arval want to see all pieces
of heraldry that have even one period model to pass. Others, like Tadhg, feel
(please correct me if I've misinterpreted) that the general practices of 
Western European High-Middle Ages heraldry should be followed.

>    Tadhg, Obelisk

Written Wednesday before the celebration of the birth of Our Lord, from my home
in the Debatable Lands.

Esmeralda, Sycamore
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca