[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Query re: A&S/heraldry comp at Pointless
Poster: "Thorpe, John" <email@example.comSC.NCR.COM>
Greetings from Eldred!
Scripsit Dominus Herveus d'Ormonde, alias Triton Principal Herald:
%On the subject of display of unregistered arms, arms belonging to another,
[Triton expounds on display of arms under current SCA policies and
%Nereid did in her message bring up a related issue of someone
%conspicuously displaying arms registered to another as his own. If the
%offender declines to cease the display when the matter is brought to his
%attention, then the owner of those arms has a legitimate grievance which
%can be pursued to its conclusion.
I am of two minds on this. First, I agree that (regardless of Tibor's view)
when a person submits armory for registration, that they should become
the principal owner of that armory--regardless of whether it is the SCA,
Court of Lord Lyon, etc. However, in spite of the fact we have an implied
contract(for whatever its worth), we still live in a free society(political
debate aside) in which the First Amendment to the US Constitution is
supposed to guarantee someone freedom of expression. Display of
armory is such an expression.
In the context of "playing" SCA, we would like to maintain the illusion
that we "own" our registered armory. As Tibor so eloquently points
out, we don't own it--it is just on a list maintained by the Laurel
Sovereign of Arms. When someone violates the rules(customs)
we use in our game, then our illusion begins to fragment. We have
no formal recourse for arbitrating disputes nor enforcing those
%It has also been argued that the College of Arms does not have or should
%not have jurisdiction, or that there is not or should not be one
%heraldic jurisdiction encompassing the entire Society. To this I reply:
%The structure of the SCA sets the Laurel Sovereign of Arms as the chief
%heraldic officer of the SCA with authority and jurisdiction over heraldic
%activities in the Society. Thus, by definition, the SCA comprises a
%single heraldic jurisdiction. Arguments of the nature and range of period
%heraldic jurisdictions cannot change this. Note that the recent change
%in the range of armory protected within the SCA reflects the position that
%the SCA is a heraldic jurisdiction, distinct and independent from any other
%in the past or present. I reject the call for anarchy.
Cats and dogs living together, TOTAL CHAOS! 8^) 8^)
Tibor and I have a running discussion on this. I do not agree that dividing
the Kingdoms into separate heraldic jurisdictions is a bad idea or is
anarchistic. As a counter-proposal to inertia or total change, why not
allow each Kingdom have control over it's own jurisdiction, and use
the Laurel Sovereign of Arms as an arbitrator for inter-jurisdiction
This frees up much heraldic space for people who like similar armory.
Within a Kingdom, armory can be made unique. When someone
travels to another kingdom, they can difference their arms if necessary
with a bar or label. The model is closer to actual practice, and central
control for registration and Society-wide administration remains in place.
Unfortunately, you still do not have a method to enforce those rules.....
%Since its earliest days, heraldry has been characterized by several
%It identifies an individual
%It is inheritable property
%There are certainly exceptions at certain times and places, but these two
%features are characteristic.
I think we are holding this discussion in the wrong mail list......
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org