[MR] Proposal for reducing the backlog of scrolls with help fromBarons/esses and Heralds

[David W. James]

On Jun 18, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Kelly Keck wrote:
> I definitely agree.  Also, is heraldry period for every persona?  It's 
> by no
> means my area of expertise, but I'm sure there are heralds on the list 
> who
> can give us a history of heraldry and where/when devices were used to
> identify an individual.

	Someone else has already answered this, but it bears repeating: 
visitors to Europe during the Middle Ages and Rennaisance were, on rare 
occasions, given arms while there.  That their native culture wasn't 
heraldic didn't matter, "When in Rome..."

On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Vels inn Viggladi wrote:
> You do realize what you have effectively just said is that everyone 
> must
> adopt Fourteenth Century French/English elements into their portrayal 
> within
> the SCA, whether it is their study or not?

> If the CoA were not so rigid, using only 14th century French/English 
> style
> heraldry, then more people would likely have registered arms.

	That strikes me as an odd thing to say, given how often I end up 
documenting 13th (and later) century Swedish, 16th century German or, 
on rare occasions, Iberian designs for people.

	Please, would you point me to where the rules (available at sca.org) 
say that we are 'using only 14th century French/English style 
heraldry'?  I could go to the rules for submission that the College of 
Arms has been using since 1990 and and tell you which sections make it 
clear that we do not rigidly (or even loosely) use 'only' 14th century 
French/English style heraldry, but I think instead that I will ask you 
to do something simpler.


> I dunno if you have ever seen my fighting gear. The colors are off for 
> the
> historic era, but the clothing and display is "heraldic" for my era and
> geography... Just 600 years before the rules are based.

	I note you put 'heraldic' in quotes.  What, exactly, do you mean when 
you write it so?

> It may sound harsh, but I joined a group that focuses on 
> "Pre-Seventeenth
> Century Western Europe" not "Fourtheenth Century France and England".

	Which points to an interesting definition of 'focus'...

On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:41 AM, David Chessler wrote:

> But there are some persona for which arms are surely inappropriate at
> any time or place. Peasants, merchants, craftsmen, Jews, Gypsies, and
> other minorities come to mind.

	"Heraldry, An Introduction to a Noble Tradition", by Michel 
Pastoureau, notes on page 20, discussing the history of arms and their 
spread throughout society:

"Used at first by princes, barons and lords, arms were gradually 
adopted by the entire western aristocracy. By the early 13th century, 
about 1500 distinct coats were in use in England.  At the same time, 
they spread to non-combatants, to commoners and to various corporate 
bodies: one by one, women (from 1180, sometimes earlier), the clergy 
(towards 1200), patricians and bourgeois (towards 1220), artisans 
(towards 1230), towns (from the end of the 12th century), corporations 
(towards 1240), civil and religious communities (late 13th and early 
14th centuries) adopted arms.  In some regions (Normandy, Flanders) 
even peasants sometimes bore arms."

	In period Germany and England, merchants and craftsmen, over time, 
made their makers' marks look like armory, and in a few documented 
cases, when granted (in one English example) arms made them invoke 
their mark.

	From Germany, I have seen examples of Jewish heraldry, including one 
example showing charges considered 'typical' (interestingly enough, the 
Star of David is not one of the design elements), but there were others 
that were not significantly different from what others around them 
bore.

	I admit that I do not know of any examples of the armorial bearings of 
a Gypsy, but then again, given above, I wouldn't be surprised if 
someone documented it occurring.

	So, perhaps 'surely inappropriate' is a trifle too strong?

Kwellend-Njal