From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 20:25:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <a7510b2e@nudity.UUCP> vnend@nudity.UUCP (David W. James) writes:
>parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
>> Almost everyone I've ever asked has indicated that the colleges
>> of arms, collectively and individually, are about the most 
>> retentive type-A flutterbudgets ever to don a tabard, and it 
>> seems to me that rules like these ones are the reason.
>
>	So many say this, but so few are willing to *do* anything about
>it.  Why do you think that is?

Er, because the COA is an entrenched bureaucracy, with power to
screw around with you to a mild extent, and that you can safely
avoid dealing with the problem by a) knuckling under and
submitting and bithching or b) not submitting and bithching?

>> Add this to the different "heraldic styles", like Japanese
>> clam symbols, Guild heraldry, and plain old "Gunnar has
>> a fylfot on his shield cause dad did, and fylfots are cool"
>> way back in the 9th century.
>
>	"Japanese clam symbols"?  :-)
>
>	All but the last are allowed under the current rules (under protest that
>the first doesn't belong, but...).  Do  you have any examples of the last?
>I suspect that you just made it up, as I don't recall *ever* hearing of
>something like it in any of my reading.

I dunno *how* Gunnar decided he wanted a fylfot instead of a
dragon or "argent a bend gules", but the scenario above is likely
how the first halting steps were taken to heraldry...It was 
meant to point out, however, that large numbers of persona
have absolutley no use for formal heraldry.


[long paragraphs of examples, and good ones in the main deleted]

>	It is possible, Carolus, to change the rules.  Ignoring them, on the
>other hand, is just discourteous.

Sorry, I disagree...I am under *no* obligation to register arms.
None at all. I can ask the college to register and protect them
for me, but that's about it.

>	I suggest to you that either you play the same game as the rest of us,
>or that you consider if you want to play the game at all.  If we each just
>start picking and choosing which of the various rules we'll obey, we might
>as well disband.

Wrong. The fact that of the thousands of people who "play" SCA,
there are thousands of sets of rules is our strength, and not our
weakness. It's why the COA *has* improved it's act somewhat
since I joined...Because a bunch of people bitched, and
did something about it.

>> BTW: "per saltire or and azure, a cock erect gules beneath
>>      a chief enarched of the same" 
>
>	Nice, other than the line of the chief.
>
>Kwellend-Njal Kollskeggsson

And what, pray tell, is the matter wit the chief?
Keeping in mind BTW that I should have been able to pass
"per saltire or and azure, a cock erect gules"\
by itself, save that the COA requires a ridiculously
high level of "uniqueness"?

Betch the Canadian College would pass that device without a
quiver...

...Course I don't have the money to back up my bet, as I
understand it costs 1000$ or so to pass arms mundanely.

Carolus
Grumpy in general, so posting may not be up to my usual
standards, such as they are.

-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca