Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic Questions...
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:44:33

 IO>   First, an observation:  There's a very real reason why devices in
 IO>   the SCA have a large number of 'uncommon' period practices applied
 IO>   to them:  They're easier to pass that way. *Because* there were
 IO>   relatively few period uses of your examples, they have a
 IO>   correspondingly lower number of mundane conflicts.

 Plus the fact that most submitters are too (deleted) lazy to try for
 something that both avoids conflict *and* is period style; they just take
 the easy way out.

 IO>   If you want SCA heraldry to reflect the real armoury of the period,
 IO>   the only way to do this is to loosen the mundane conflict rules.

 Da'ud tried that -- proposed that we only require one
 not-a-standard-cadency-change difference from mundane armory. Got flamed
 big-time. End of discussion. *I* certainly like the idea; if you want to
 join the external commenters and push for it (or just write an irate
 letter to Laurel; you can do that, you know), I'll be happy to support it.

 IO>   "Tournaments Illustrated", Fall 1991, Issue 100, page 9, 'Things we
 IO>   know that Just Aren't So', _From the Laurel Sovereign of Arms_, by
 IO>   Master Da'ud ibn IO>   Auda:

 IO>     "Another fallacy I hear occasionally is that we don't allow
 IO>     'Japanese,' 'Arabic,' 'Eastern European,' etc, heraldry.  This is
 IO>     simply not true. There are some specific parts of every heraldic
 IO>     system (including British!) whuch we have chosen not to allow in
 IO>     the interests of creating for ourselves a reasonably consistent
 IO>     system of heraldry."

 Sounds like what I've been saying all along...

 IO>   Sounds quite simple (and it is).  But there's a large problem in
 IO>   there (as some see it). We have the heraldry of *all* countries in
 IO>   period being governed by the SAME set of rules.

 No, we have *SCA heraldry* being governed by a set of rules that doesn't
 precisely match any set used in period, much less *include every* set used
 in period. That's the whole point. The SCA rules are a subset of every
 other set of rules used in period; what we allow, they allowed, but some
 of what they allowed we don't. Call it "least common denominator" (or at
 least "lesser common denominator") heraldry. That's the part I don't
 necessarily like, but find justifiable.

 The part I REALLY don't like (or find justifiable) is that what we
 actually *register* includes a lot of (deleted) that would not have been
 used in period. Obviously tweaking with the Rules is insufficient, when
 explicit requirements that "all armory must be compatible with period
 practice" are insufficient to ensure that, in fact, all armory is
 compatible with period practice. It's not enough to have good rules, one
 must also have knowledgeable and dedicated people to enforce them.
 Unfortunately, far too often, in the College of Arms, it seems that the
 knowledgeable people aren't dedicated enough and the dedicated people
 aren't knowledgeable enough. I have no miracle cure for that (other than
 "Everybody listen to Tadhg", a proposal that has met with mixed reviews in
 the past).

    Tadhg, Obelisk

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)