🚀 go-pugleaf

Tadhg Liath, Obelisk Herald, writes:

(note:  I rearranged some of Tadgh's statements in an attempt to show themes.
If this causes a communications gap, I apologize in advance.)

>    Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald, wrote:

> CX>...not allowing all medieval recreation is discriminatory.

> So what's your point? Not allowing non-medieval recreation is
> discriminatory. You trot out "discriminatory" as if it were some form of
> child abuse. There is nothing wrong with being "discriminatory"; the
> issue is where to draw the line.

> ...there isn't a Known-World-wide College of Costuming
> (or Singing, for that matter), headed by a corporate officer charged in
> Corpora with regulating how we do it. Certain parts of our "recreation"
> are structural, and not something that we can do or not do as we choose;
> heraldry is one such, just like Crown Tournaments.

  This is a good point.  Currently, the SCA is defined as covering all 
cultures that came into contact with Europe before 1600.  As a part of the
corporation of the SCA, the College has a responsibility to uphold that 
definition.  We do not have the right to refuse other people the recreative
opportunities that they are given by Corpora.
  If the CoA was an unofficial organization, it wouldn't matter so much--if I
disagreed with you, I could form my own college.  But, for better or for worse,
the CoA is part of the SCA, Inc, and is bound by the same rules that bind the
corporation.

> Count the number of SCA devices that (a) use purpure as a field, (b) use
> purpure for a charge, (c) have a charge oriented to sinister, (d) use a
> bend sinister versus a bend, (e) have an ordinary overlying the
> corresponding line of division, (f) have different types of charge on
> either side of an ordinary, (g) put wings (especially bat wings) on
> ordinarily non-winged creatures, etc., etc., and compare those numbers to
> similar armory (of you can find it) in Papworth, or Lyon, or Rietstap, or
> Siebemacher. To a considerable extent, the exceptions are taking over even
> as we speak; I think a very good case could be made that the trends in our
> armory depart significantly from those present in Real Armory, especially
> Real Medieval Armory, and to that extent we are in retreat.

> CX> I think the best way to solve this problem is to let people do their
> CX> own work.

> That doesn't "solve the problem" except in the sense that it would totally
> divorce the SCA from any pretense of connection with the Middle Ages. I am
> unwilling to countenance that.

  This is a non sequitur.  Please show me the connection between making people
do research and disconnecting from the Middle Ages.

> In period, as in mundane heraldry today, "the rules" varied from
> jurisdiction to jurisdiction; we're such a jurisdiction, and we have our
> own "rules"; and it is far from intuitively obvious that our "rules" ought
> necessarily to include *everybody else's* "rules" from the vast temporal
> and geographic scope of the SCA just because such comprehensiveness is
> tolerated in other areas. Shall I wear a houppelond and a belted plaid?
> Why not? Both come from in our period. How about a toga and a chaperon
> with a liripipe? Same logic applies. How "medieval" would the atmosphere
> be in such a group? Not very.

  I understand your point, but this can be applied to heraldry.  German 
heraldry allowed black eagles on red.  Hungarian heraldry allowed green mounts
on blue.  Does this mean that we could have a green eagle on blue?  No.  We 
could also say that red bendlets could be used, but only as marks of cadency,
not on seperately registered arms.  By limiting the usage of "non-standard"
armorial elements to their uses in the Middle Ages, we can control the
problems.

> I can't stem the tide of purple axes and bat-winged wolves and sheaves of 
> threaded needles, but at least the rule of tincture has survived; if I had to
> choose what to save and what to lose, that might not be my choice, but I'm 
> not *getting* a choice -- I have to work with what I've got. As do we all.

  I'm beginning to understand the depth of emotion you're putting into this.
I have to admit that I can see where you're coming from--but what do you say
to Miklos or Vajk, two serious, authenticity-minded people who are forbidden to
pass heraldry appropriate to their persona?  You're making them combine French
heraldry with their Hungarian everything else, and creating the very problem
you're trying to solve. 
 
  It seems clear that the only way we're going to get medieval heraldry is by
loosening the conflict rules.  Many people I've dealt with have wanted to pass
medieval heraldry, but they're prevented by the sheer idiocy of the CoA, which
is willing to spend man-years keeping people from registering medieval
heraldry.
  In all honesty, I see where you're coming from.  I get frustrated about many
of the same issues.  I just don't think that a fanatic defense of the rule of
tincture is going to help make our heraldry any better, and is certainly making
it worse.  In the cost/benefit analysis, this doesn't seem to win.

		Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald
		Canton of the Riding of Hawkland Moor
		Barony of Northwoods, Midrealm
		atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu		**Magnitudo Vocis**