From: rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:05:37 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim) writes:

>   Hans Rancke wrote:

>HR>>The point is that monarchs typically were not elected; doing so is
>HR>>eccentric, and there's no "valid argument" available.

>HR>You've just said that the Empire and Poland had elected kings (I'll take
>HR>your word for that since I don't know too much about that). I can inform
>HR>you that the Scandinavian kingdoms did too. So what is typical? Well,
>HR>obviously the people of your preferred slice of Period. So you're
>HR>arguing in circles here. The people who did things the way you want
>HR>them done didn't do things the way you don't want them done. Wonderful.
>HR>Any other place and time in Period appears to be atypical and need not
>HR>be taken into account.

>*sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

Do, please do. It makes your arguments so much more intelligible.

>Monarchies that were elective: The Holy Roman Emperor (formally, although
>less so in practice) and Poland. Monarchies that were halfway elective:
>Norway, Sweden, Denmark (I say halfway because I'm sure that not every
>successive monarch was elected, just when something unusual, such as a
>line dying out, occurred).

I sure hope that your grasp of facts that I can't check is better than
your grasp on those that I can, though you give me little grounds for
hope. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were elective kingdoms from the first.
In Denmark (and thus Norway) this lasted until 1660. No doubt someone
from Sweden can tell us how long it lasted in Sweden.

Don't be confused by the fact that the candidates for the thrones were
restricted and that the eldest son of the old king had the inside track.
Even when (as was often the case) the eldest son was elected, he was
_elected_. he did not ascend the throne by right of succsession.

>Monarchies that were not elective: England,

Harold was elected in 1066 and when he was killed the anglo-saxons
tried to elect Edmund's grandson Edgar as king. A coalition of
Norman barons tried to make Wilhelm II's _older_ brother [emphasis
mine] king. Henry I had to sign a royal charter before becoming
king. Mathilda was his legitimate heir not by right of succession,
but because Henry had had his vassals swear fealthy to her before
his death. Stephen I was elected. John Lackland was elected. Henry
III was elected. Those in between were appointed heir and accepted by
the nobility prior to ascending the throne. Edward I is the first
to ascend the throne by right of succession.

>Scotland, France,

Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious was not elected, true, but he
succeeded his father through being appointed co-emperor by him.
(Louis' son Lothar were likewise appointed co-emperor by his
father). But Charles the Fat (885) was elected. So was his successor,
Count Eudes (888-898). Charles the Simple wass accepted without
opposition (Uncontested election? ;-), but in 920 a group of
nobles elects Eudes' brother Robert as 'opposition king' (not
my expression, that's what my source calls it), and after him
Rudolf, Duke of Bourgogne in 923. Louis IV was elected in 940.
Hugo Capet was elected in 987. The first Capetian to ascend the
throne without prior election was Louis VIII in 1223.

>Castile, Leon, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal,
>Naples/Sicily, Bohemia, Hungary.

Somebody else claimed that you were wrong about Hungary too. I
wouldn't know.

>(Bohemia
>was technically elective but in practice hereditary except when a line
>died out. All medieval monarchies started out elective but had become
>effectively hereditary before the 11th century, which is well before what
>most people in the SCA attempt to emulate).

Scandinavia and Germany: Not until after Period. England: 1272, France:
1223.

>Compare the two groups. In number of units, total size, total population,
>and influence on medieval (and modern) culture, the second group beats the
>first in a walk. That's what "typical" means: "according to an established
>type", with the weight of instances establishing the type.

Yes, but the second group is far from homogenous. There were several
different ways of becoming king in addition to the right of
primogeniture. There were appointment by the previous king and
swearing fealthy to the Pope for the kingdom to name but two.
So by that argument NONE of the methods were _typical_. Furthermore,
And most kingdoms did resort to elections on special occations.
So election was a known, accepted, and well-used procedure, even
in places where is was not usually practiced.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>HR>Well, being restricted in the use of heraldry does seem to impair
>HR>those of you who want to emulate personae from outside your preferred
>HR>time and place.

>>No, it merely discourages them (without, however, barring them entirely)

>HR>I know that no two words are truly synonymous in all situations, but in
>HR>making a distinction between "impairing" and "merely discouraging" you
>HR>are performing a feat of sophistry that defeats my knowledge of english.
>HR>What's the difference?

>*sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

Do, please do. It makes your arguments so much more cogent.

>There is a certain moral pressure on people to register the armory they
>use. There are in a number of areas a requirement that one have registered
>armory (not, please note, that what is registered be what one actually
>uses); such areas are functionally negligible - awards scrolls and such.

This particular bit sounds awfully weaselly to me ("You can use what
you like elsewhere as long as you have an official CoA for these
piddling unimportant areas), but if noone objects to that sort of
double standard... All I can say is that it dosen't square with MY
conception of Arthurian Knightly Ideals.

>This moral pressure, however, cannot prevent someone who is willing to
>ignore it from accomplishing 98% of what there is to be accomplished in
>the SCA, including the throne, the peerage, the cover of Tournaments
>Illuminated, and myriad opportunities to look down one's nose at others in
>public.

>This is the distinction between "discouraging" and "barring". It's like
>smoking in the workplace: if people look down on you for it, it's
>"discouraged"; if you can get fired for it, it's "barred".

A well-reasoned and convincing argument. A pity that you didn't
answer my question, which was NOT "what's the difference between
'discouraging' and 'barring'" but "what's the difference between
'discouraging' and 'impairing'".


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    >-- which I think is a Good Thing; there are far too many centrifugal
>    >forces active in the SCA as it is. Looking at the SCA, one would
>    >think that the dominant cultures in Period were Celtic and
>    >Scandinavian, and that the French, Germans, Spanish, and Italians
>    >were just fringe groups. The problem here ought to be obvious.

>HR>That too many people in the SCA are interested in other periods than the
>HR>one you are interested in?

>*sigh* Very well, then, let us plod.

Do, please do. It makes your arguments so much more convincing.

>No, that people will get the wrong idea about what is central and what is
>peripheral when it comes to the Middle Ages.

>Since you seem to require words of close to one syllable,

A simple well-reasoned string of arguments going from provable facts
to logical conclusion without skipping most of them will do.

>I'll do the best I can: France, Spain,
>Italy, and Germany were more important in the Middle Ages than Norway,
>Sweden, Denmark, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.

That's true enough.

>Find a history of medieval Europe; I don't care which one. Cut out all
>pages that mention Denmark or anything coming from Denmark. Weigh what's
>left. I will bet you a large sum of money that the difference between
>"before" and "after" will be less than 5%. That says to me (and to any
>rational individual) "not very important".

Denmark had quite an impact on medieval Germany, but not on much else,
I'll grant you that. But from there to claiming that the Scandinavian
kingdoms were 'barbarian fringe' is too large a jump.


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>HR>Really? It's been a long time since I browsed through my old copies of
>HR>Amra, so I may misremember, but the stuff I read there didn't seem to
>HR>indicate quite that amount of reverent seriousness.

>   >So what's your point? As is often mentioned, the Society improves over
>   >time.

>HR>First you cite the Founders as supporting your point, and when I question
>HR>that you switch to arguing that things have luckily improved since those
>HR>Bad Old Days. Do you think you could make up your mind? Or is that the
>HR>problem? That you have made up your mind completely?

>Yes. I am firmly of the conclusion that you are the single densest
>individual I have ever met in my life.

Temper, temper. I don't call you a rude, arrogant, opinionated boor, do I?

>As for the above, I don't see any
>conflict between the two, therefore there is nothing to "make up my mind"
>*about*. The SCA started off as a certain type of organization. It has
>since progressed toward more authenticity. I see value in either
>perspective, although of course I prefer the latter. The "We're just in a
>play, we can make it up as we go along" attitude, however, is consistent
>with neither.

That's a good boy. You really can present a proper argument if you try.

>I can print it in large letters with crayon if that's what you need....

No, this will do. When you brought in The Founders as character witnesses
you were not claiming their support for having things more authentic, but
for having things in the original Athurian Romantic way. Got it.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>HR>I wouldn't call it "resentment", but I liked what I read about the SCA
>HR>in those Amras long ago. It sounded like good clean fun and it saddens
>HR>me when I see how serious it all seems to have gotten.

>So you're bitching because the organization doesn't match "what you read
>in those Amras long ago"? Seems to me that you have even less
>justification for complain than you say I do.

Who is bitching and complaining? I was expressing an opinion. When I hear
of an institution of which I approve changing into something of which I
approve less isn't it natural to feel regret, however mild? I find names
like "Siegfried von Hoeflichkeit" and arms like "Brique of gules and
argent, a broken cross encircled of the second, three points down" funny.
You don't. Not much scope for argument there.

>If you are looking for
>Fantasyland, there's one in Caid and one in Trimaris. They are not,
>however, part of the SCA.

Thank you, but I have another Fantasyland closer to home.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
------------
"I know there are some people in the world who do not tolerate their
fellow human beings, and I just can't _stand_ people like that!"
                                (after Tom Lehrer)
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet