Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Sitting on the fence (was Re: Pentacles/Consorts)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:08:08 -0500

Griffith ap Morgan ap Griffith sends greetings to you all! 

In a recent missive, Ciaran Benson writes:
  CB> Admittedly, I'm a little confused about this.  I take it that you've
  CB> got big tourneys where everyone bashes each other about (stage
  CB> fighting?  Cool!) and the winner, male or female, gets to choose their
  CB> consort for some period of time.
  CB> 
  CB> Is the problem that women are forbidden from the tourney, and thus
  CB> from the crown?

No...

  CB> Or is it that whoever wins must choose a consort of the opposite sex?

Yes...

  CB> If the former (forbidden), then there's very little that can be said
  CB> to defend that kind of discrimination.  As has been said, 13th century
  CB> pretenses about male and female roles just don't wash anymore, and are
  CB> offensive. If the latter (opposite sex), then there still is
  CB> discrimination if only in that a MOTOS may choose their SO as their
  CB> consort, while a MOTSS has to pick someone they can get along with
  CB> while their SO sits in the sidelines.  This is not playing nice,
  CB> folks.
  CB> 
  CB> The idea of defending this kind of social setting -- indeed,
  CB> institutionalizing it through your incorporation, really doesn't sound
  CB> like much fun for a fair number of your members.
  CB> 
  CB> I sincerely doubt that I'd have much fun in such a setting, especially
  CB> since I've gotten fairly used to communities where people participate
  CB> based on their abilities and desire, rather than their gender.

While this may appear unfair to a certain segment of Society members, what about
that part of the Society that feel that having same sex rulers is disruptive to
the medieval feeling at events, etc? When one joins a *private* social
organization one should expect to play the rules of the games as the
organization has defined them and not try to drag along the conflicts from the
"real" world into it if doing so conflicts with the purpose and interests of the
organization. I, at least, joined the Society to get away, at least for a while,
from the kind of nasty conflicts that seem to saturate our culture these days. 

For those who wish to fight those battles, there are far more appropriate and
productive fields in which to conduct such frays.

  CB> As for the pentagrams/cles,
  CB> 
  CB> In article <1992Sep9.185257.5368@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>,
  CB> boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:
  CB> 
  CB> [...]
  CB> 
  > The statement by the SCA does not attempt to restrict the religious
  > expression of any individual or group.  The only restriction is that the
  > pentacle may not be registered in arms.
  > 
  CB> My appologies, from the posts I had read previously, it seemed that
  CB> the display of a pentagram/cle was forbidden, period.  To take a quote
  CB> from "Young Frankenstein"; "That is, of course, and entirely different
  CB> matter". Well, maybe only sort of an entirely different matter.  Does
  CB> this mean that a sword, for example, bearing a smith's mark of a
  CB> pentagram clearly visible above the guard or on the pommel would be
  CB> banned?  How about partial plate that has a 1" pentagram embossed in
  CB> the metal over the heart (as is a part of my mark?).  I'm sure some of
  CB> you will think I'm picking nits here, but I'm certainly not in a
  CB> position to know until I ask -- has your executive board ruled that
  CB> pentagrams can not be registered, and thus not be used in hereldry? 
  CB> Or are they forbidden as ornimantation on arms as well?

Specifically, the restriction is on their use as part of a heraldic device that
is to be registered with the College of Heralds. Many folks at events wear
pendants, earrings, etc. that feature pentacles. The appearance of pentacles on
blades, chests, feast gear, etc. is not prohibited in any way.

  CB> By official decree, your incorporation bans the pentacle for registry --
  CB> NOT because is has a questionable historical use, but because of fear
  CB> of intolerance.

You act as if that intolerance is an ephemereal fear... It isn't! There are
folks out there in parts of the country who have shown that if the SCA and our
activities can become targets for so-called "anti-satanic" forces. The BOD acted
with prudence with regards to prohibiting the use of pentacles, along with
swastikas as specific examples of a broad category of offensive heraldic
design.

There are many things that you can't have as part of your arms that can be shown
as done "in period". Virtually any form of morbid heraldry, which was fairly
common, for example. (ie: dead or dismembered animals, people, etc.)

So while the BOD has been asked to rule specifically on pentacles, there are
many other things that can not and will not be accepted for use in registered
arms in the Society.

- Griffith ap Morgan ap Griffith
  Baronial Herald of Ponte Alto,
  Kingdom of Atlantia


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca