From: schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Subject: Period Heraldic Practice
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:47:51 GMT

Along the lines of the other discussion of period practice
versus the Rules of the College of Arms, Arval asked me to
post sections of the Cover Letter on the latest letter
from Laurel King of Arms.

They were discussing arms submitted by a Magyar persona.  It's
worth noting that the arms were rejected, for conflict.  Not for
the color on color violation.

With no further ado, the words of Lord Laurel.

	Tibor

Green trimounts and color fields
  
One of the submissions considered this month (rdg Magyar Bla) engendered
considerable discussion among the commenters, and at the Laurel meeting.
The submission used a green trimount on a blue field, which violates the
SCA's Rule of Contrast, outlined in Rule VIII.2.b.i.  However, there's
ample period evidence that green mounts and trimounts were routinely
used on colored fields, usually gules or azure.  The LOI cited only a
couple of examples, but the former Lord Codex has written a monograph
showing several dozen period examples, from English, Portuguese, Italian,
Hungarian, Austrian and German heraldry.

At what point, then, should we permit a documented period usage that
violates our Rules?  On the one hand, it is a documented usage; on the
other hand, there are other documented usages we explicitly disallow. 
Ideally, we should be promoting period style; equally ideally, we should
have a uniform set of Rules that heralds at every level can use. 
"Every Rule has its exception"; but too many exceptions destroy the Rules. 
There is no right answer. At best, we can only strike a balance between
competing principles.

The issue of "regional style" doesn't obtain here:  green mounts were
used on color fields across Europe.  It's purely a question of the usage
we wish to encourage, without making our heraldic system too unwieldly
to use. My own thought (voiced independently by Lady Harpy) was that
green trimounts on blue or red fields could be specifically designated
an exception to our Rule of Contrast.  There's some precedent for this,
mostly from the names rules:  e.g., Rule III.2.a forbids mixing
prepositions in one language with placenames in another -- yet we
routinely permit the French de to be used with English placenames, on
the basis of extensive evidence.

Much of the commentary on Bla's submission had an undercurrent of "Well,
I wish we could pass this, but the Rules say...."  If that's the feeling
of the College, this issue could be addressed to Lord Palimpsest for
further discussion, leading to a possible Rules change.  Remember that
any Rule we devise must be easy to use, must not consider persona, and
should approximate period style.  Alternatively, we could simply define
exceptions to the Rule, such as the green trimount, and let precedent
deal with the problem.  Or, finally, we could leave the Rule as it stands,
and note that the loss of perfect authenticity is the price we pay for
usable Rules.

Please give some thought to these issues, so we'll be able to deal with
them when they rise again -- for I feel certain they will rise again.

	LOAR Cover letter, 10/92
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@progress.com)
[I'm just showin' you my opinions: this ain't a gift]
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca