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

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 10:34:57PM -0400, McKenna wrote:
> 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.

This body of experts are a body of talented amateurs, not professionals
paid to do this. It is long been the case that the ultimate
responsibility for documentation lies on the submitter. These experts
cannot know everything, nor should they be expected to. It's quite
unfortunate that you choose to use the phrase "soi disant". It is
needlessly inflammatory, and adds nothing positive to the discourse,
particularly when you propose to lay the *burden* of proof on these
experts. You tar a large community with an exceedingly broad brush
without cause. Pray retract your calumny.

> 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.

This claim does not survive close scrutiny. There has been increasing 
acceptance of practices discerned in contintental, iberian, and other
heraldic contexts. The key is to produce evidence to support the registration
of these novelties -- evidence often adduced from a wide range of books
in or about non-English contexts. Many of the readily available books in
English have retreated from the excesses of the Victorian period. If you 
limit your evidence to "old" Laurel letters, you will certainly see evidence
of ignorance that you don't see today. That should not be a surprise, nor
does it provide a basis for the objections raised above.

The rules now in place were devised by laying out some general principles
and deriving more specific rules from them. While heraldry more or less
"happened" during most of period, there were writers in period who attempted
to codify observed practice (or what they thought practice should be). The
rules in question also attempt to codify observed practice. Of course, one
can find many examples where period practice appears to directly contradict
rules. Where the period record shows a pattern of this, one can argue (as
provided for in the rules) for an exception based on period practice. When
adequately documented, those exceptions tend to be granted, and can 
generally be relied on in the future. Could you expand on your claim that
the rules are, in effect, Victorian *and* English?
> 
> 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.

How recent is your experience? One can find evidence in the records from
more than a decade ago that directly rebuts your claim. One coat does not
show a pattern. On the other hand, the practice of green trimounts on blue
fields (violating the rule of tincture) have been amply attested in period
armory, and are acceptable in suitably simple armory. 
> 
> 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.

The practice of merely assuming arms is well attested in period. On the other
hand, your copyright merely protects that particular rendition. The sort
of protection offered by the College of Arms is most nearly analagous to
that offered by trademark law, not copyright law. Nothing about your
copyright would bar me from submitting an emblazon whose blazon is identical
to your copyrighted drawing, and I could make that picture sufficiently 
different as to be a separate work of art. Were that armory to be free of
conflict and registered to me, I would have standing to insist that you cease
using that armory in the SCA.

In a previous post, I mentioned that the Tuchux mark was now registered as
a badge. What I didn't mention was that that registration was done specifically
to give the owner standing to control the use of that mark in the SCA. 

> 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.

I've already noted my concern that this requirement could, if not done
with care, put the heralds in a position to prevent someone from contending
for the crown, and that that would be a very bad thing. I think that Janos
has made it reasonably clear that that is not their intent, and that they
are not inclined to be unreasonable. I find myself comfortable with their
plan.
> 
> 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).

It is possible to devise armorial bearings that are stylistically compatible
with a non-heraldic culture in most cases, although that can require some
creativity. Many heralds love such a challenge. Also, it is not necessary,
per se, to bear one's arms on the shield. There are many ways to display that
armory, and it may be that it only appears on the shield tree. No big deal.

[snip]

yours,
Herveus
-- 
Michael and MJ Houghton   | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
herveus at radix.net         | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA            | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
                          | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/