From: nathan@sparc2.prime.com (Nathan Kronenfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Heraldic proposal (was Re: Heraldic Questions...)
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:14:37 GMT
Organization: Computervision

In article <1993Jan26.213717.24493@watson.ibm.com>
mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:
>Greetings from Arval!...

>If I may, Tadhg, let me try to define the difference between your approach
>to SCA heraldry and mine, which apparently has confused some people.  If I
>am off-target, please clarify for me.  Both Tadhg and I are interested in
>making SCA heraldry more medieval.  We differ on the meaning of "more
>medieval", or more precisely on the aspects of authentic heraldry on which
>the SCA should concentrate.  I want to maximize the opportunity for each
>piece of armory to be authentic in itself (though internally consistent),
>by eliminating the elements of our heraldic system that bar much of the
>range of period armorial usage.  I would prefer to allow the individual
>full choice from the full scope of history covered by the Society, and I am
>willing to sacrifice much of our heraldic system to achieve that goal.
>Tadhg wants to maximize the authenticity of the heraldic system as a whole,
>to create a body of heraldry with a common style.  Within that system, he
>would prefer that the frequency of a usage roughly correspond to the
>frequency of that usage in a particular period of medieval history, and
>that the standards of style and conflict correspond to those appropriate to
>that period and place.  He feels that the value of this consistency, in
>terms of what it would teach us about the uses of armory, outweighs the
>cost of the de facto restrictions it places on SCA activity.  It is
>essentially a difference in scope of interest, which is why Tadhg and I can
>use virtually the same arguments to support our separate positions.  Put
>another way, Tadhg is interested in the authenticity of the College of
>Arms, while I am interested in the authenticity of each piece of armory on
>its own.
>
>===========================================================================
>Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com


Assuming this is an accurate description of the difference (heck, even
if it isn't, I think this is a worthwhile proposal anyway)...
	
Has anyone ever tried to start a second college of arms in the SCA?  I
assume Laurel would have the authority to recognise something of that
sort, given the inclination.

In theory, I would think Tadhg could start a college of 12th century
English heraldry, with far stricter rules than the general college.
Again, in theory, there could be an agreement between the two
colleges, basically that anything registered in Tadhg's college would
be essentially valid in the SCA.  Of course, one would expect that
Laurel would periodically check the rules of the other college(s), but
I would think a workable deal could be arranged.

In addition, this sort of practice could greatly reduce the CoA's
workload (although it would probably also reduce their work force).

Even if the CoA refuses to consider such a plan, someone could try it
anyway, and see if it ends up with any real recognition (i.e. of the
heraldic arms registered therein).

Has anyone every tried anything like this?  I would imagine it would
be a pain to set up initially, but would it solve enough problems so
as to be worth it?

In addition, this might make it easier to broaden the scope of the
current college of arms, so as to allow more of what Arval wants.

		-Daniel of Falling Rocks
		 Carolingia, East
		 nathan@designview.prime.com
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet