[MR] Re: Greetings, thanks, and notice: a heraldic question

[McKenna]

Pedro scripsit:

> I don't know the particulars of your case, but I can say fairly
> that I have argued a successful appeal from Golden Dolphin to
> Laurel. Most heralds of my acquaintance are typically willing to
> be convinced by suitably presented evidence.

At the risk of dead horse abuse, and acknowledging the fact that there are
_some_ excellent heralds out there (one of them being Pedro), I think it
ought to be said that if the appeal was successful it should never have
needed to be done in the first place.  A body of experts should have known
the "suitable evidence" before denying a submission.  IMO the burden of
proof should be on the soi disant experts of the CoA, not the submitter.  My
overwhelming experience with SCA heralds (going on 35 years) is that most of
them lay claim to a far greater level of knowledge than they possess, and
rather smugly at that.

Also the CoA has adopted a 'mission statement' to encourage _European_
heraldry as practiced _in period_, while adopting rules that are, for all
intents and purposes, Victorian and English.  They say one thing but do
another.  There is objective evidence of this practice.  Look through the
old Laurel 'Letters of Return' and I think you will be struck by the
specious nature of many of the objections to a member's blazon.  They
collectively ignore many examples of German, French, Spanish, and Italian
armory (not to mention Russian/Slavic) that are different--often wildly
so--from the Victorian English examples presented in the most readily
available English language books on heraldry.

My experience has been that even if you can show a period examples of coats
of arms that 'violate' the 'Laws of Heraldry' they cite to disallow
registering a blazon, they will still not accept the submission. YMMV.

Personally, I don't feel any pressing need for the CoA's imprimatur for my
device.  I've been using it for six years now, and I'm not planning to
change.   Nor do I feel any pressing need for the CoA to 'protect' my unique
arms: my copyright with the Library of Congress Register of Copyrights
trumps a Laurel acceptance.

As for TRH's requirement for heraldry.  The shield tree is way kewl.  Less 
'spike' and more personal spiff seems to me to be not unreasonable.  IMO 
it's a great idea, if its intent is to promote spiff displays and pageantry, 
and is not implemented in a manner that strong-arms the participants into 
lock step with the CoA.
I was going to suggest that perhaps TRHs could clarify "reasonable attempt" 
a little better, but Prince Janos beat me to it.  As it stands now it 
appears (at least to me) that potential contestants must add 'messing about 
with the CoA' to the requirements to contend.  I can't say as I like that 
development, at all.

As Pedro himself pointed on this list many years back (I archive all sorts 
of stuff :-) "Lots of people in the SCA have personae who never would've 
used arms, since heraldry developed after the First Crusade. An *anything* 
of arms wouldn't have meant anything to somebody until some time after, in 
actuality-heraldic law
developed some years later."  Also, many combatants in tourney, especially 
in later period, bore shields decorated not with arms but with some truly 
stunning artwork (how they could bear to let somebody whale away on it is 
beyond me).

If I understand correctly, Your Highness's goal is more spiff, rather that 
simply more devices?  Would it be possible, Your Highness, simply to require 
a "brave display" presented on a shield shape appropriate for the shield 
tree for those whose personas would not have been armigerious, or who don't 
care to engage in the frequently frustrating process of registering arms?

regards,

McKenna