🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tx!35v#@rpi.edu> habura@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura) writes:
>
>We've been having a discussion on the Heralds' Mailing List about why each
>SCA branch is required to have a herald. It's apparent that the founders 
>thought heraldic arts were important enough that every branch needed one, but
>we can't figure out *why*. (Corpora requires a seneschal, a herald, and 
>either a MoAS or a marshal.) Knowing as I do that heralds weren't around as
>an actual office for the first few years of the SCA, I am naturally curious
>about when they began to be considered as essential. 
>Would those of you who might know enlighten us?
>

I have heard that it was the first office created by the BoD, and hence
it only exists because of tradition. If you read the "Last Tournement"
article in the KWHB, you will notice that there was a herald before
there was a king. (He read the invocation of the lists "Ecce Eduardus
Ursus, post Christophorem Robinum descendens est...Tum...Tum, Tum..."
Which is a marvelous bit of silliness that I think should be revived.)

I think it's silly to require a herald for every group. Each group
should have a seneschal (to be the legal representative of the SCA) and
an Exchequer (if the group has any money, to keep the IRS of the SCA's
back), plus a minimum of 5 paying members (of which the seneschal and
exchequer can be 2). Anything else should be optional. In any large and
healthy group, it should not be a problem to scare up a full slate of
officers, so I think that any "real life" change will be minimal.

Lothar \|/
        0

herald for every branch. I think that each branch should be required to
have a Seneschal (legal representative) and an Exchequer (if the group
handles any money, to keep the IRS off our backs). Anything else should
be optional, any any healthy group of any size will tend to have a
herald (out of tradition if nothing else).