[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: firstname.lastname@example.org (Craig Levin)
> Herveus dixit:
> %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.
This may be so, but if a band plays a song written by a composer,
they've got to pay for his music, or in other ways grant him the
credit for writing the music. Otherwise, they'll catch heck,
either by getting a rep as plagiarists, or from the cold and icy
hands of the Feds. I spent time and treasure working on a name
and arms, such as they are, and I think I deserve credit for
having done so. Someone who hasn't gone through the time and
trouble is skimming off of my work, IMO.
> 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
We do. That's one of the reasons why Courts of Courtesy and of
Chivalry were developed. That these tools have sat long unused
does not remove their usefulness. I'd say that they're last
resorts, though. The court of the principal herald might be an
institution worth constructing. The historical parallels of the
Juge d'Armes and Lord Lyon are documentable bases for such a
> %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.
> 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
It's not a bad idea, I suppose, but people move from kingdom to
kingdom rather frequently. Students migrate across boundaries as
the schools open and shut, military and corporate personnel get
transferred, and travel, as someone pointed out, is a lot easier
these days than now. Would you care to wait a few days while
Laurel finds time to deal with your armorial dispute whle you're
> 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.
I think it's a good idea, but we need CoA wide thought on this.
> Unfortunately, you still do not have a method to enforce those rules.....
> I think we are holding this discussion in the wrong mail list......
Considering that heralds serve all the people, shouldn't they
have the right to hear?
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: email@example.com