[MR] Re: Triton Speaks on the GoA

[BATCOK at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
As a number of points are raised in this message, I will address each at it's
making.  All my comments reference the masculine mode as a typing saving
measure and apply equally well with the feminine.

Batcok, Triton

In a message dated 4/22/2003 5:50:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
davewendelken at earthlink.net writes:

[Andras]
My Lord,

The ruling may well be SCA Heraldic policy, but it is not in accordance with
period usage, as I understand it.  A great lord, let's say a King or Duke,
might gain title to another fief.  Said lord could be addressed by that
fief's title, and, if they thought the fief important enough to warrant it,
would style themselves with all their names, including the recently acquired
ones.
*****
[Michael]
Historically, indeed, a landholder would, could, and did refer to himself by
any and all of his assorted titles as his needs and desires required.

As it happens, the SCA's entire system of armigerous statuses is completely
non-historical.  In the times we recreate a person was either noble or not
and the nobles segregated, ranked, and titled themselves by the amount of
real estate they controlled directly or through others.  Since land ownership
is a poor method of determining grades of high noble status in these current
middle-ages another path had to be chosen.  Being recognized a noble of the
realm by the Crown gives the title Lord (or is it higher nobility since we
all start with noble status?) and appointment as a Baron of the Court gives
the title Excellency.  Combat prowess was chosen to determine the higher
peerage status of Knight, Count, and Duke.  Artistic Skill for Laurel and
Service for the Pelican were also recognized as equivalent to the skills of
Combat, but with the different title of Master.  (That this also removed from
play the standard salutation of period for those of unknown rank is a sad
historical fact of our recreation.)  The only titles that carry any real
reference to land control are King (overall ownership), Prince (heir to
overall ownership or owner of lesser amounts), and Territorial Baron (local
owner).

The Armigerous States (Award of Arms, Grant of Arms, and Patent of Arms) are
entirely a creation of our game and would best be viewed using the comparison
of Scouting Ranks.  One begins with receipt of the status Cub Scout work to
Boy Scout then end as an Eagle Scout.  If you have obtained Eagle Scout
status before Boy Scout status, you wouldn't be qualified (or perhaps you
would be over qualified) for the lesser ranking.  This is what the Precedent
Mistress Jaelle pointed out means for our case.

(Real Scout people may withhold commentary on my inference, I never got
beyond Cub in my Scouting Career and this works for my point.)
*****
[Andras]
Thus, I see no reason someone could not be given a baronetcy after they were
made, say, a duke.  (That would, of course, have no bearing upon whether they
got an additional award, grant, or patent of arms.)  They would still have
just one of those.
*****
[Michael]
The Court Baronage, which comes with an Award of Arms, is similar in practice
to the Orders of [High] Merit with their Award [or Grant] of Arms.  You still
receive the "ness" of it (fancy title or prestige of accomplishment) but no
status change if you already had the armigerous "kicker."
*****
[Andras]
Whenever we have these decisions to make, I prefer to make ones that include
all of these criteria in generous measure:

a) Period precedent,
b) Makes logical sense,
c) Workable given our amateur, part-time, volunteer organization,
d) Generates more fun.

In the absence of workable solutions that encompass all four criteria, I
prefer to evaluate starting with the "most fun" option, and stop when I find
a workable solution.

To wit, giving and receiving awards is fun, has period precedence, makes
logical sense (in motivational terms), and requires little long-term effort
to keep track of.

Overly complicated precedence rules are not fun to administer, appear to
interfere with the fun of giving and receiving awards, require extra
volunteer labor to "verify" whether the award can be received or not, and
therefore makes little logical sense (in motivational terms or efficient
usage of scarce volunteer resources).

Thus, by my judgement criteria, recieving extra awards should be allowed.

The following statement should, **in no way**, be construed to be an attack
upon the fine work that our heralds do, or upon their character.  It relates
solely to the issue at hand:

This seems to be a clear case of putting the cart before the horse.  Heralds
exist to keep track of awards, awards do not exist because heralds approve of
them.


Andras Salamandra
*****
[Michael]
I personally agree with you on this point.  However, my professional position
requires that I work within the structure of previous SCA Heraldic
Regulation.  Using available and computer accessible legal references I built
a case to allow the giving of lesser armigerous status to those who hold
higher statuses then searched to see if there was anything that would
overturn my interpretation.  However, it turns out that all the information
available on the matter was not computer accessible.  As Mistress Jaelle has
pointed out, the Laurel Herald (the highest source in the Heraldic
Jurisdiction) ruled that multiple awarding of an armigerous status are not
allowed -- only the first counts (a wording of which is specified in Kingdom
Law).  That ruling also states that higher armigerous status precludes the
awarding of lower armigerous statuses.  Unless a Laurel Herald is willing to
buck such a long-standing precedent, it is not likely that this
interpretation will be overturned.

In this, we are perhaps following the most historical model -- interpreting
the decisions of our forebearers as they apply to current situations.

Batcok, Triton

"Nobody can be exactly like me.  Sometimes even I have trouble doing it."
- Tallulah Bankhead