Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
From: vnend@nudity.UUCP (David W. James)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:45:54 -0500
X-Mailer: Fernmail 1.1

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?
  
> For the vast majority of our period, there was no heraldry
> at all, and for most of the period in which heraldry was in
> use, the rules were not at all cut and dried.

	This is absolutely correct, and I don't know anyone, inside or
outside the college of arms that would argue with the sentiment.

	However...

	We've all seen arguements on period vs. postperiod songs, p. vs. p.p.
dance, et cetera ad nauseum.  The fact behind the rules used for SCA
armory is that there has been, since the early days of the society, an
effort to recreate *period* armory.  This effort is, apparently, 
sanctioned by the membership, as it is written into our laws (Corpora
or the By-Laws, I forget which.)

	Yes, there were few 'rules' of armory recorded in period (in fact,
there were some recorded, from time to time), but then there were
few rules of grammar recorded for the vulgar tongues, but few I know
would argue that there weren't any!  Just because things are not written
down does not mean that they were not followed.

	The rules of submission of armory in the SCA are an attempt to codify
the rules that governed period armory.  To this extent they succeed in
some places and fail in others.  To the extent that they fail, they are
constantly under consideration for revision.  Revisions are always being
considered by the college, and the rules refined (sometimes the 'right'
way, sometimes the other...)

	Now, we could easily do away with the rules for submission.  And then we
would have one of two situations.  Either we would have some of the same
problems other areas of our recreation have with regard to in period and
out of period design and execution, or we would be totally reliant on
the purely subjective opinion of the "experts" of the society in that
field.  Which would you rather have, of the three?

	I'll settle for rules that are open to examination and change, thanks.
 
> 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.
 
> It seems to me that the SCA college of heralds has set up
> a system which greatly restricts the armigerous from
> having the arms they want, and that furthermore, this has
> been done in a fairly arbitrary fashion.

	See above.
 
> There is of course an excellent way to deal with this,
> simply do not bother to register your arms. I, for example,
> have not yet registered mine (though as far as I know they 
> are unique), and may never get around to doing so...But if
> enough people begin to take this route, the college will
> eventually become unwanted, unloved, and unheeded.

	Do you also go to events, enter tourneys, and then ignore the rules
of the tourney, because you disagree with them?  If you shoot archery,
do you use balances and sites that are post period, because they improve
your score?  Do you do this in other things you do?  Did you start running
before the start if you ran track, ignore outs in baseball, ignore
offsides in hockey?

	What you are saying, above, is that the 'rules' that we as an organization
have agreed to play by don't apply to Carolus, that you can do as you
please, simply because you either don't like or don't understand the
rules.  I don't *like* the infield fly rule, but I still obey it if
I'm playing baseball, the same as I don't face thrust if the place I'm
playing doesn't allow them.  I *know* it is a silly rule, I've fought
with face thrusts for the majority of the time I've been in the SCA, but
hey, I'm playing a game with these folks, so I'll play by the same rules that
they do.

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

> It is my suggestion that all heraldry rules, saving only
> the most basic ones of tincture, and period nature of charges,
> and conflict be dropped. If i want 7 layers of heraldry,
> with 42 distinct and different charges seme on a field
> gyronny of 24 purpure and sable...Well, that's my business.

	No, it isn't.  Any more than it is just your business if you want to
wear jeans and a t-shirt to a feast.  They had pants, and they had shirts
and t-tunics, therefore you're in the clear, right?  Wrong.

	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.
 
> After all, you can't legislate good taste.

	If it were simply a matter of good taste, I might agree with you.  But
it isn't.
 
> What does the rest of the rialto think? Are we too
> picky about what we allow? Is it too late? Is this
> a non-prpoblem? Why? Why not?

	You left out some questions.  Like, "Are we not picky enough?"  "How
do we change what we don't like?"  and, ultimately, "What do we want the
SCA to be?"
 
> BTW: "per saltire or and azure, a cock erect gules beneath
>      a chief enarched of the same" 
> Carolus Malvoix

	Nice, other than the line of the chief.

Kwellend-Njal Kollskeggsson
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca