Re: Cross bottony device problem

[Heather Swann <heather@pop.net>]

Poster: Heather Swann <heather@pop.net>

> In a message dated 98-09-03 18:09:27 EDT, Lady Rhiannon ui Neill,
> Triton Principal Herald, and Lord Tirloch of Tallaght, Heraldry Committee
> Chair, write:
> << You will note that the first item is a direct conflict with the device
>  which received the highest number of votes for the proposed principality
>  device and that the second, eliminates the possibility of just reversing
>  the tinctures.
>
>  (snip)

> So why was the individual who submitted the arms AND the
> principality heraldry committee not together advised of the
> potential conflict before it was presented as fait accompli?

I have heard nothing to indicate that that is the case.  They may have been so
advised, but as no formal submission of any proposed principality device has
been made, it is not technically a conflict.

> There should have been a dialogue established
> between the two parties to avoid the appearance of sabotage,
> and I believe that responsibility for establishing that dialogue
> rests firmly on the shoulders of the herald(s) that received the
> submission from Elizabeth Bowles and passed it up the ranks.

I would disagree.  The herald can not hold up submissions to wait for a
discussion about something that has not been submitted yet.  If The person in
question was informed of the potential of another similar submission, the
person in question should have extended the diplomatic negotiations at her
convenience if she so desired..  Heralds should not be required to conduct
diplomacy, particularly in the case of a 'maybe' submission vs. an actual
submission.  They have hard enough jobs as it is.

>  <<The kingdom herald's office is required to forward all submissions which
>  do not contain conflicts or rules violations to Laurel in a timely
>  fashion for her consideration.  We are not allowed (nor would it be
>  fair) to hold back any submissions or return them based upon pending
>  items we know might be coming along later.  It's a "first come-first
>  served" system.>>
>
> However, it seems a right and moral practice for the heralds to advise
> people when they may be creating a volatile situation. Creating a
> dialogue between two parties prevents bad blood and allows for
> resolution of a problem before it is created. A person who wanted
> to scuttle the Good Ship Principality could very easily determine
> all the proposed heraldry because it *must* be discussed FIRST
> in public, and then register them all, effectively stopping
> the whole process single-handedly. The "good" of the individual,
> in this case, must certainly not be allowed to undo the good of the whole.

Whoa.  The heralds should behave as they have and do their job- efficiently and
neutrally.  It's not necessarily the 'good' of either- it's simply the wishes
of either.  To actively take a hand in it would be to conspire in one direction
or the other.  To simply properly process what one is given in the order it
comes in would not.  After all, someone who likes a proposed device for the
proposed principality has the right to register it and 'save' it for the
principality, giving it up to that if it passes.

>
>
> << The question now, is what to do regarding the proposed device choices. >>
>
> Is there room for dialogue with the submitter? Is there a place
> for Permission to Conflict? Is there a method for appeals within the
> heraldic system?
>
> Frankly, for a situation this serious to have gotten all the way to
> Rhiannon and Tirloch and the August Letter of Intent before
> being noticed by any other herald seems to indicate at the very
> least that something about the current system is broken.
>
> In sincerity,
> branwynn

No, I wouldn't say so.  I'd say the heralds have all handled it correctly, and
there is already a process that has been engaged and the next popular device is
going to be submitted.  It's that simple.  Not much fuss, not much muss.

Miri

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org