Re: Labels (was: Royal Arms)

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Greetings to the Merry Rose and all the shoppers at Cheapside,

Lord Duncan makes an interesting, if obscure point, to which I would 
respond, after I make an important announcement, really just a reminder.

OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ,
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE CHANGES TO THE KINGDOM ARMS ARE DUE TO HER 
MAJESTY BY THE 15TH OF MAY.  VERBAL COMMENTS AND POSTS IN THE MERRY ROSE 
WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.  WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU CARBON COPY ANY 
CORRESPONDENCE TO THEIR MAJESTIES ON THIS MATTER TO THE TRITON PRINCIPAL 
HERALD.

Cough, sorry, I think my voice is going.

> This is more of an esoteric question, but it is related
> to the topic du jour:
> 
> Q: What is the in-period meaning of the label?
> 
> Is it (as I presume) and indication of primo-gentry
> by blood relation?  Or is it used as an indicator
> of who a chosen heir will be?  Anyone know of an
> example of either or both?

The label is a mark of cadency under the English system of cadency.  It 
implies the bearer of the cadenced arms has no higher station then being
a son (they didn't use cadency for daughters) of the owner of the arms.
Otherwise, the wearer would have his own arms.  
Of course, the label is the mark of the first son, and under the English 
system, the only one to inheirate rank and title from his father.  On the 
continent, of course, there were many systems where all the sons would 
inheirate rank from their father, which is why you have a bunch of poor 
princes and dukes running around, with more title then land.
 > 
> This may have some impact on the decision to use the
> label, as some SCA coronations have used the premise
> that the Prince/Princess are descendants of their
> Majesties, and other SCA coronations have clearly
> departed from that (often in the Middle Kingdom).

Well, since in reality we have a system where the heir is chosen by right 
of combat, suggestions that he is actually related to the King and Queen
seem rather silly.  However, we probably don't want to encourage the notion
that the Prince and Princess are just hanging around until they have a chance
to upsurp the Crown from the King and Queen ;-).
> 
> I have no preference, and actually like changes.
> I think there is some really good schtick in coming
> up with new ways to pass the crown along, but the
> label usage may (I am not sure) indicate one form
> of coronation only.

I tend to agree that the use of the label, especially for the princess, 
implies a tighter control of the heirs by the Crown.  And that it reduces
the likelyhood of good shtick.
 > 
In Service
Leifr Johansson
who still feels the consort to the heir is not the heir to the consort.