Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Heraldic questions...
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:52:06

    Lady Sycamore wrote:

 BG> Tadhg writes:

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

 BG> I believe you are overstating your point.


Then why is Lady Black Stag always on my case about "current standards"? If   

"current standards" don't represent some sort of consensus, then I don't   

know what does.

    Certainly I disagree with "current standards" as much as Arval does  

(just in the other direction...).


 > 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.

 "BG> The comment of Hungary makes no sense.


    I was under the impression that green mounts on blue fields "were  

common in Hungarian armory", and it was a submission of that sort that  

started this  whole thread.


 "BG> Different areas had
 "BG> different  flavors to their heraldic display. If a person
 "BG> has a Hungarian persona, and likes the heraldry of their
 "BG> chosen country/period then what is the basis for the CoA to
 "BG> state that it was just a fashion and not a general practice.


Because this *isn't* Hungary, this is Ansteorra, or the East, or wherever;  

in essence, because this isn't Hungary, it's the SCA, and the SCA (like  

Hungary and every other mundane jurisdiction) has developed its own  

more-or-less consistent style that doesn't include everything that  

everyone else is doing. Neither Lyon nor Garter would grant a green mount  

on a blue field, even to a Hungarian.


 "BG> The evidence points to it being a general practice in
 "BG> Hungary.  


See above ("this isn't Hungary"). Our period deals with "Western Europe",  

and what is a general practice in Hungary may be (and is, in this  

particular instance) an exception when "Western Europe" is the context.  


 > 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".

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

We don't. "Vetu", "chasse'", "chape'", "rompu", and "ploye'" are all  

examples of non-English terms that would need a long(er) string of words  

to describe in English; all have been in regular use in the CoA. When  

there is a foreign term that expresses a concept for which there is no  

appropriate English term, Laurels (certainly Bruce and Da'ud, that I know  

of for sure) have been prone to adopt it. "Nesselblatt", "seeblatt", and  

"schimare" (hot off the September LOAR) come immediately to mind.  


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


An excessively simplistic view of the rules, in my opinion. If that's all  the  

rules were for, then we wouldn't need rules, just documentation for  armory (as  

we require documentation for names). The purpose of the rules  is not only to  

provide some sort of objective standards regarding what is  and isn't period,  

but also to provide some sort of *consistent* stadards  regarding what  

constitutes acceptable style. If that were not the case,  then this dispute  

could not have arisen, because Laurel wouldn't ever have  returned a design  

using a documentably period armorial practice -- which  we know is not the case. 


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


The key term here being "support". "Evidence", by itself, has never been  

enough.


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


[south of the Trent, north of the Loire, west of the Rhine, 1100-1400, is  

Tadhg's preference.... if you want to be precise.]


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca