[MR] Unfortunate Tidings regarding the Queen's Arms change

[David W. James]

On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 12:16  PM, gormofberra at direcway.com wrote:
> There is certainly no question that if 100% of the paid membership 
> responded affirmatively, that that would indicate support (or shared 
> dementia...but that's another story).

> There hasn't ever been a definitive "This is the number it takes" 
> ruling that I have been able to locate.  Numbers that have been 
> bandied about indicate that a Majority of the populace should respond, 
> with a significant majority of those being in favor, before something 
> like this would pass.

It wouldn't show up in a ruling, as it is set forth in the Admin 
Handbook (http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/admin.html#IV_C):

IV.C

5. Evidence of Support - Submissions involving the branch name or arms 
of an active branch must include evidence of support for the action on 
the part of a majority of the active members of the branch. In the case 
of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be demonstrated by a 
petition of a majority of the populace and officers or by a petition of 
the seneschal and at least three-quarters of the other local officers. 
In the case of branches with ruling nobles, such petitions must also 
include a statement of support from the ruling noble. A valid petition 
must include a clear description of the item submitted; either the 
blazon or emblazon is sufficient for a petition regarding branch arms, 
though both are preferable. If a submission would result in the 
registration or modification of the Branch Name or Branch Arms of a 
kingdom, principality or equivalent branch, support must be 
demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted in the relevant 
official newsletter and certified by the seneschal of the appropriate 
branch. Branch badges, order or award names, and other Branch names 
(such as names for guilds, herald's titles, etc.) do not require 
evidence of support at the Laurel level. Kingdom may require it if they 
so desire, for their internal procedures.

So the answer, as written into the rules of the office and approved by 
the Board, are a majority of the 'active members of the branch' (which 
leaves a lot of wiggle room in and of itself... how many different 
people attended last years Crown Tourneys, Coronations and Twelveth 
Night?)

It is also possible to argue that letter as sent fulfills the 
requirements above.  That first sentence doesn't say "a majority of the 
members of the group" (in this case, 1001 or so people) or even "a 
majority of people responding, which must be a majority of the people 
in the group" (501 supporting out of 1001 respondents.)  It says 
"evidence of support for the action on the part of a majority of the 
active members of the branch."  In this case, it could be argued that 
the 'active members of the branch' are the folks who care enough to 
respond.

However... :-)

Note that it specifically says "Submissions involving the branch name 
or arms of an active branch".  The Queen's arms are neither.  It might 
be reasonable to argue that the last sentence applies, and that 
evidence of support was not needed at all, and that the support sent 
though was purely a courtesy. The return does say "changing armory that 
is as important as the consort's arms.", so it appears that Laurel 
considers the consort's arms equivalent to branch arms, but this is the 
first time I have seen that asserted. If this were an attempt to change 
the arms of the King(dom), then a letter showing support of 1001 or so 
members of the Kingdom would be reasonable. But it isn't.

Last, I believe that Laurel's ruling was incorrect in at least two 
other ways.

First, 93 out of 2083 *is* sufficient, from a statistical point of 
view, with a margin of error less than 5% (assuming that the 93 are 
randomly chosen, which this sample fails, but...)

Second, there have been many issues where the Board of Directors would 
have been delighted to have heard from 93 SCA members out of 25000, let 
alone 93 out of 2100. Holding the Kingdoms to a higher standard than 
the Board holds itself seems a little... unreasonable?

Kwellend-Njal
Narwhal Herald
(who still thinks that the Queen should be using the same arms as the 
King as *as arms*, and that the 'Queen's arms' are, in fact, a badge.)