Law of Arms, was something about Pointless

[clevin@rci.ripco.com (Craig Levin)]

Poster: clevin@rci.ripco.com (Craig Levin)

Tibor dixit:

> Ahh, but which illusion?  The illusion of ownership of armory?  That
> illusion is not a good one: for it is not only false (as all illusions are)
> but it prevents us from understanding history, and from playing more and
> better games of history.

If ownership of armory is an illusion, whence came all those
lawsuits at the Court of Lord Lyon, of the Earl Marshal, and
several lesser known tribunals? Surely, one doesn't sue for
possession of something, when one doesn't believe that that
something can be possessed! I think what we need is a clearer
exposition of the law of arms, which can be found in George
Squibb's _High_ _Court_ _of_ _Chivalry_. The Upton/Bartolus
school, which upheld the right to assume arms, was countered not
just in the British Isles, but also on the Continent, by another
school, which believed that arms were granted, and could not be
assumed. Tibor, and you, my fellows in the College, I speak of De
Bado Aureo, Strangways, and Ferne, as well as the much-debated
proclamation of Henry V after Agincourt, which Velde and others
take to interpret one way, but the Latin is clear. If any prefer,
to engage in this, as Latinists, I can post the proclamation in
the original.

> I have some of the most fun I can have in the Society, when I can act as a
> period herald acted.  Resolving such disputes in a peaceful and period style
> manner seems to me to be the ultimate fun,

I agree. IMO, heralds aren't asked in the SCA to act in their
role of mediators as they would have in period, and I'd love to
try my hand at it.

> Or, is the illusion you feel that is being shattered the period illusion we
> attempt to create? Nothing could be further from the truth.  Identical arms
> were born all over history.  (I could bear that out with a quick check in
> Papworths Ordinary, any random page.)
> That seems like an interesting challenge.  I happen to be working from home
> today, so I will check some random page in Papworths...

<Oh, for a Papworth's! Catholic U.'s mediaeval studies
department's walked decades ago.>

> Page 356.  The first arms listed belong two different names, the third
> arms listed belong to 3 different names, the fourth arms listed belong to 4
> different names, the fifth arms listed belong to 4 different names, the
> seventh arms belong to two different names.  Half the arms belong to
> multiple names.  (And this is England alone: I know not for the continent.)

> Let's check a few other pages, the first 10 arms:  I find that somewhere
> between one half to one third of these random arms have multiple holders.

My guess is that they're not in the same shires, yes? There's
some talk about Carminow v. Scrope in which the Carminows'
advocate notes that Cornwall was once a separate kingdom, and
hence its own heraldic jurisdiction, as, indeed, many of the
shires were. Still, I'd love to learn more.

-- 
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~clevin/index.html 
clevin@ripco.com
Craig Levin
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org