Fed up with the College of Heralds!!!
craig thomson
little device to fashion to his stuff so that it might be readily
identified as his:
Once upon a time, a starry-eyed and optimistic young scotsman
came down out of the hills seeking a symbol to call his own. He had
no name (as far as the CoH was concerned), and no idea of what to look
for.
Signs and portents led him to his local herald, who advised,
counseled and corrected him until, at last, a suitable design was
developed. "Och, happy am I, t' 'ave sooch a loovely device," he
said! "Hold!", cried the herald, "Before you may register your
device, your name must first be approved by Those Who Reject. Go unto
the library, and seekest thy documentation!"
Feverishly, the scotsman battled through book and reference,
eventually emerging victorious from the dank, twisted catacombs of the
library. He returned to the herald, who upon seeing that the scotsman
had returned alive, said "Before your documentation is admitted to
Those Who Reject, you must include a sacrifice of seven dollars to be
burned in offering that your name and device might be approved. For,
verily, 'tis only by Divine intervention that such things are passed."
The scotsman did as instructed, and began the submission process.
A month passed. Two months. Six months. A year. Alas, the mundane
world called him away from his little shire and into another kingdom.
So, he wrote two letters to the kingdom herald, but heard nothing.
Nor had his formerly local herald heard a thing! So, settling into
his new shire, the scotsman decided to resubmit his name
and device through the heralds of his new kingdom.
Once again, the documents were procured. Once again, the
sacrifices were made and prayers offered: "Oh, please, let it pass
this time!"
Within two months, the herald came bearing news. "Your device,
as we know, did not conflict with any registered SCA arms," she said.
"However, there is an obscure military badge which shows a similar
design, but with a different color. Hence, it was bounced. Also,
there wasn't enough documentation for your name. Sorry."
The scotsman seethed with rage! His device was bounced because
a mundane badge had a different color?! It's bad enough when you're
cautioned not to display a REGISTERED device in the mundane world, but
it's even worse when a mundane device invades the SCA world! And the
name? No conflict, just a lack of documentation! Hmmmm, I thought we
were trying to re-create the middle ages, here. I doubt that expectant
parents in medieval europe had to jump through such hoops to name
their children. Furthermore, if everyone had to document actual
names, we'd all be named Adam or Eve!! SOMEBODY had to invent new
names, and as long as the names followed practices of the time and
region, there should be no problem, right? RIGHT?!?
There was something terribly wrong, and the scotsman knew how to
fix it! He got on the farspeaker to the land of Washington, D.C..
From the Federal Information Center (1-800-735-8004) he requested a
form VA with which to copyright his device. Within five working days,
the scotsman received his forms, and promptly titled his device as
"Device of Stephen MacTerre", thus registering his name as well! All
this for US$20.00, which is about what his previous attempts cost him!
And so, having registered his name and device with the mundane
federal government, he knew that no other authority could refuse his
right to display his arms in ANY setting, and he lived happily ever
after in the 12th century.
Stephen MacTerre
"Vert, two chevronels braced, a bordure argent"
Dennis O'Connor
ctho...@unlinfo.unl.edu (craig thomson) writes:
] Within two months, the herald came bearing news. "Your device,
] "However, there is an obscure military badge which shows a similar
] There was something terribly wrong, and the scotsman knew how to
] From the Federal Information Center (1-800-735-8004) he requested a
] form VA with which to copyright his device. Within five working days,
] the scotsman received his forms, and promptly titled his device as
] "Device of Stephen MacTerre", thus registering his name as well! All
] this for US$20.00, which is about what his previous attempts cost him!
] And so, having registered his name and device with the mundane
] federal government, he knew that no other authority could refuse his
] right to display his arms in ANY setting, and he lived happily ever
] after in the 12th century.
]
] Stephen MacTerre
] "Vert, two chevronels braced, a bordure argent"
I love it ! And since the College of Arms already bounced it, no
one else can register it, right ? Mission accomplished, in spades !
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
tom irelanddelfs
you can then claim you "own" it. Doesn't make it honorable to display
it, however, within the SCA which has its own rules it plays by (or its
members agree to play by). So, it's yours. Good for you.
FRIDRIKR
gea...@viper.engr.scarolina.edu
I'm with Dennis on this one. I've had my own device altered because
"it didn't look period", but since I like the way it looked after
the alteration.....
Anyone else out there got stories about their devices getting bounced
for silly reasons??
>--
>Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
>Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
>
Patrick Gearman
(But I play Rolland at War...)
--
Badges?
I ain't got no badges.
We don't need no badges.
We don't got to show you no stinkin' badges!
- Bandito Leader "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
tim myers
: Milord Stephen - you can register anything you please with the Fed's, and
: it, however, within the SCA which has its own rules it plays by (or its
: members agree to play by). So, it's yours. Good for you.
However, this should now be perfectly permissable to be registered in the
SCA. Remember the devices only problem was conflict with mundane heraldry.
By registering the device(copyrighting it) the gov't has declared
there to be NO conflict with the other. If that's not good enough for
the heralds then nothing ever will be.
Toli
--
Tim Myers Toli the Curious
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Shire of Mag Mor
tmy...@unlinfo.unl.edu Kingdom of Calontir
Dennis O'Connor
frid...@world.std.com (tom irelanddelfs) writes:
] Milord Stephen - you can register anything you please with the Fed's, and
] it, however, within the SCA which has its own rules it plays by (or its
] members agree to play by). So, it's yours. Good for you.
Strangely, I don't remember anything about the College Of Herald's
rules taking precedence over my 1st Amendment rights of self-expression
in any of the forms _I_ ever signed ... did I miss a revision of the
waiver at some point ?
enn...@delphi.com
>
>Anyone else out there got stories about their devices getting bounced
>for silly reasons??
>
running out of why we hate THE BOD threads...
Two badge go up, both pass kingdom (somewher around October)
LAUREL makes a rule change (somewhere around Janurary?)
BOTH badges are in violation of new rule (OK, the passed ANSTEORRA
long before the change, OK right? huh, please...)
One badge passes, one badge is shot down for the same rule.
Both badges are fieldless with an overlayed charge, both are
ntally for visibility of back charge.
Same RULE is applied "at whim" to both badges, one flies, one dies.
This might be ok if one guy is in say Dallas (Steppes) and one is in
Houston (Stargate) neither would ever know what happend. When both
people are form the same shire people get upset. When the "passing"
badge is the local pursiuvant, it REALLY looks bad. When the dead badge
if the pursivant's lady, he RESIGNS and never wants to see any thing to
do with it again (valiantly resisting the urge to NUCLEAR FLAME) and proceeds
to ingore the "proper" (pun intended) use of heraldric display from that
point forward. No readon to let THEM spoil our fun...
-Enniaun
Dennis O'Connor
tmy...@unlinfo.unl.edu (tim myers) writes:
] By registering the device(copyrighting it) the gov't has declared
] there to be NO conflict with the other.
No, it just means it's in their files, so that if the issue
is disputed at a later time, there's definitive evidence of
who registered what and when. Only the courts can decide conflict.
Do you think for $20 they search the entire database of trademarks
and copyrighted graphic desings for conflicts between _drawings_ ?
Most likely they just put transfer the app to microfiche
or some other dense media and throw away the original.
tom irelanddelfs
>So, this gets to be a why we hate Heralds thread. Sound good, we're
>running out of why we hate THE BOD threads...
>
> Two badge go up, both pass kingdom (somewher around October)
> LAUREL makes a rule change (somewhere around Janurary?)
> BOTH badges are in violation of new rule (OK, the passed ANSTEORRA
> long before the change, OK right? huh, please...)
> One badge passes, one badge is shot down for the same rule.
> Both badges are fieldless with an overlayed charge, both are
>ntally for visibility of back charge.
> Same RULE is applied "at whim" to both badges, one flies, one dies.
You can't argue whim without the complete details. You might be
surprised - for example badge 1: a rapier, overall a flounder; badge 2: a
pavilion, overall a rapier. In # 1, the flounder pretty much obscures
the rapier completely, but in # 2 the rapier doesn't obscure the
pavilion. # 1 bounces, # 2 passes the same rule. Yet both are charges
overlaid by other charges.
Without the facts, it's hard to judge the ruling.
FRIDRIKR (being pretty defensive this morning)
tom irelanddelfs
The government (civil or otherwise) doesn't run how WE (the SCA as a
whole) chose to play OUR game, Toli, and neither should you. Do you
really believe that the Trademark Registry checked this against medieval
armoury? If you do, you're probably wrong. They checked it against what
they protect - other Trademarks. So, whether they like it or not doesn't
matter. And the "honor" argument still holds. This is a "nice" way to
get around the rules the SCA runs by. I feel that to "cut corners" in
this fashion is dishonorable.
FRIDRIKR
Bill McNutt
>they protect - other Trademarks. So, whether they like it or not doesn't
>matter. And the "honor" argument still holds. This is a "nice" way to
>get around the rules the SCA runs by. I feel that to "cut corners" in
>this fashion is dishonorable.
For the record, I do not.
But then, my high regard for central authority is well-documented.
craig thomson
: The government (civil or otherwise) doesn't run how WE (the SCA as a
: whole) chose to play OUR game, Toli, and neither should you. Do you
: really believe that the Trademark Registry checked this against medieval
: armoury? If you do, you're probably wrong. They checked it against what
: they protect - other Trademarks. So, whether they like it or not doesn't
: matter. And the "honor" argument still holds. This is a "nice" way to
: get around the rules the SCA runs by. I feel that to "cut corners" in
: this fashion is dishonorable.
: FRIDRIKR
O.K., so we're feeling a bit oppressed this morning, hmmm?
Still, no one is making any personal attacks on you. In fact, nearly
every herald that I know personally is all right in my book.
So why do you feel this is dishonorable? Is it any less
dishonorable to let me go to this day, without hearing WORD ONE about
my first submission (I still have the canceled check, so I know it was
received)? In fact, the only notice I have received about my second
submission is by word of mouth from my local herald! I know that most
of the work is done on a volunteer basis, but let's get real.
Hey, I've tried to play by the rules - I didn't just jump the gun
and ignore all SCA protocols. But when the deck's stacked against me,
I know when to move on to another game. I didn't write any hate mail
to anyone, or get in their faces; I simply chose another route to
accomplish my goals. I find nothing dishonorable in calmly seeking
alternate solutions. To have a device bounced for something as major
as a color change (the badge's tincture was azure), and from a non-SCA
source to boot, smacks of ambiguity and (as stated earlier in this
thread) "whim"-mentality.
No, a search was not done by the copyright office concerning my
device (not at twenty bucks an hour!). But I'm willing to bet that a
court of law can recognize the difference between blue and green, even
if someone in THE COLLEGE can't. Yes, it's mine. Good for me. :)
Stephen
gea...@viper.engr.scarolina.edu
>] Milord Stephen - you can register anything you please with the Fed's, and
>] you can then claim you "own" it. Doesn't make it honorable to display
>] it, however, within the SCA which has its own rules it plays by (or its
>] members agree to play by). So, it's yours. Good for you.
>
>Strangely, I don't remember anything about the College Of Herald's
>rules taking precedence over my 1st Amendment rights of self-expression
>in any of the forms _I_ ever signed ... did I miss a revision of the
>waiver at some point ?
Got to go with Dennis on this one. As long as the device I'm flying is
reasonably unique, (I.e. doesn't make anyone else's too close) then I'm
gonna fly the sucker outside of my tent if I feel like it.
Patrick Gearman
(But I play Rolland at War...)
>--
Brian Meek
My theory after 8+ years of trying to get the same device passed...
(2 lost submissions and one bounce & appeal cycle.)
Well, if *I* can't pass it, neither can anyone else, so I'll use it anyway.
besides, after all this time it's the only thing people know to look for.
(if I were to suddenly start using something else, no-one would be able
to spot it.) I really don't think honour comes into it unless there is
clear and blatant "mundanidy" or guardhouse lawyering going on.
Personally, my "patently unpassable" device is a silver sunburst (of 5 rays)
issuant fromthe base of a red pellet, with that siting in the centre of a
shield devided per pale vert & argent. The sunburst bit is my mundane
makers mark (i'm a silversmith) and All I really want to do is have that on
the shield, but apparently that's no longer possible.
The thing that's annoying about all this is that if the first two
submissions hadn't gotten lost, it would have flown, but it's taken so long
that the standards have changed to prevent it *now*.
(When I first submitted it, you could still "technically" document names
from Tolkein Elvish...that long ago...It was frowned upon, but still legal.)
Regards--
Alberic the heraldically challenged
none
--
I would venture to say that even the Laurel King of arms is Human and
can make mistakes/oversights. Given the time frame and what happened
I would have appealed to Laurel again siting the grounds you described
above. I would think that the badges in submission and passed through
Kingdom would have been grandfathered.
I am sorry that the local pursuivant feels the way his does.
Disclaimer: Not a herald, and I don't know the rules of submissions
by heart.
Astridhr Selr Leifsdottir
E. Howard-Wroth
...uunet!astrid!astridhr Shire of Heatherwyne
astrid!astr...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
70327...@compuserve.com
Patricia Shanahan
What happens if the College of Arms changes the rules to do a lot
less mundane conflict checking, and someone else registers it?
Assuming a trademark would be enforceable under these circumstances,
would it be fair to someone who had registered a device in good
faith in the SCA context to invoke mundane trademark law against
them?
Incidentally, once one has turned in forms with the proper fees
paid, they should be able to get free resubmissions and appeals until
you get something acceptable to you registered. The official rules
say that kingdoms must allow free resubs for at least a year after
the last return. They also require notification in writing of
Laurel decisions.
Agnes of Ilford, Pursuivant-at-large
--
Patricia Shanahan
pa...@cray.com
phone: (619) 625-3708
Dave Montuori
>My theory after 8+ years of trying to get the same device passed...
>(2 lost submissions and one bounce & appeal cycle.)
Ouch! My condolences on the lost forms. *That* is something us heralds
should avoid at all costs....
>Well, if *I* can't pass it, neither can anyone else, so I'll use it anyway...
> ...I really don't think honour comes into it unless there is
>clear and blatant "mundanidy" or guardhouse lawyering going on.
And much therefore depends on your definition of "blatant mundanity" or
"guardhouse lawyering." Which is one of the Great Unanswerable Questions
of Inter-Kingdom (and interpersonal!) Heraldic Cultural Anthropology.
>Personally, my "patently unpassable" device is a silver sunburst (of 5 rays)
>issuant fromthe base of a red pellet, with that siting in the centre of a
>shield devided per pale vert & argent. The sunburst bit is my mundane
>makers mark (i'm a silversmith) and All I really want to do is have that on
>the shield, but apparently that's no longer possible.
Ahhh... I remember the submission. Did you know that there's a heraldic
charge called a "sunburst"? It's close enough to your original design
that everyone who sees it will know that it's you, and using it will
eliminate the style problems that caused your submission to be returned.
BTW, in heraldspeak a "red pellet" is an oxymoron. Pellets are black.
Circles ("roundels") have distinct names based on their color, which
may be used at the submitter's discretion. This has been a public
service of the Silver Slug School for (Heraldic) Studs. :-)
There's nothing we can do about the lost forms. The best I can do
now is to help you get as close to what you originally wanted as
possible within the current Rules. If you have any questions you
can e-mail me or talk to one of your local heralds; consultation
and advice are, after all, one of the things we're here for!
Evan da Collaureo
Head Octopus, SSSS
dmontuor%telene...@uunet.uu.net
craig thomson
: Greetings;
: Personally, my "patently unpassable" device is a silver sunburst (of 5 rays)
: issuant fromthe base of a red pellet, with that siting in the centre of a
: shield devided per pale vert & argent. The sunburst bit is my mundane
: makers mark (i'm a silversmith) and All I really want to do is have that on
: the shield, but apparently that's no longer possible.
: Regards--
: Alberic the heraldically challenged
So what's wrong with that?! Not all identifying devices came
from the Norman culture, so they shouldn't all have to follow the same
rules. More power to ya!
Stephen
sys...@fctrlhp9.ateng.az.honeywell.com
Well, my device was never bounced, it just took 8 years to go through
successfully. Not an amusing story, just frustrating ("Um, it seems to have
been lost again, would you mind resubmitting?").
On the other hand, the story of my KSCA scroll is rather amusing. It was a
beautifully rendered, painstakingly illuminated piece of artwork the heralds
would not release to me until I filed a name change with the CoH. It seems the
scribe put a silent 'e' in my name when writing the thing, and since it had
been hallowed by the signatures of the Crown and the kingdom herald, the
scroll could not be given out until there existed within the sacred rolls of
the College a person named Sir Bartholomew of Wolfetwain, an obviously
far different sort from Sir Bartholomew of Wolftwain.
Thank God we have the Society to escape from from mindless bureaucracy.
For the record, these stories are ancient history and can have no relevance to
the current state of the CoH. On the other hand, the tendency of the CoA to
drift from questions like "Could this plausibly have been used in our period?"
to "Does this fit with our moral agenda?" appears sadly current.
Bartholomew of Wolf(silent 'e')twain
Proud owner of hateful and offensive, yet quite period armory
none
>tom irelanddelfs (frid...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Milord Stephen - you can register anything you please with the Fed's, and
>: you can then claim you "own" it. Doesn't make it honorable to display
>: it, however, within the SCA which has its own rules it plays by (or its
>: members agree to play by). So, it's yours. Good for you.
>
>However, this should now be perfectly permissable to be registered in the
>SCA. Remember the devices only problem was conflict with mundane heraldry.
>By registering the device(copyrighting it) the gov't has declared
>there to be NO conflict with the other. If that's not good enough for
>the heralds then nothing ever will be.
No... in fact, it may create another problem for him. There is not, as
far as I know, a rule for armory like the one for names, but I'm
currently consulting with someone whose name was returned for being
too close to his legal name (and other issues). Applying the same
principle would indicate that it would be *harder* to register it,
not easier.
By the way, I don't think the trademark people (which I assume is
who Stephen dealt with) check for heraldic conflict. If I am
correct, then the arguement that the government asserted that it
did not conflict is invalid.
Does anyone know the facts of this? As far as I know there is
no authority in the UNited States which will register personal
armory *as armory*.
--
Eirikr Mjoksiglandi Sigurdharson
...uunet!astrid!eirikr Shire of Heatherwyne
astrid!eir...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
70327...@compuserve.com
Heather Rose Jones
: At the begining of this thread, the good gentle with the insight to use
: the "far-caller" stated that the only reason for being bounced was a
: conflict with the US Military. Being that he got the US Gov to say
: there was no conflict (the copyright) I see no dis-honor in his actions.
: He was just triing to help establish that there was no real conflict with
: the mundane world.
A lot of people on this thread have been making the fatal error of
confusing "copyright registration" with "trademark registration". When
you register a copyright with the US government, all they do is cash your
check, stamp a "date received" on your forms, and file the samples you
sent (one in the Library of Congress, one elsewhere). The only legal
value of a copyright registration is proof that on that particular date
you laid claim to the rights to whatever it was you registered. If
somebody else copyrighted the same exact thing a day, or a month, or a
year before, your "rights" are worth diddly in a court of law. And they
copyright office won't tell you that someone else copyrighted it first --
you didn't pay them enough for that -- you don't find out until someone
comes knocking on your door with a lawyer at his side telling you to stop
using the item in question. You could "copyright" a photograph of the
logo of Apple Computers -- but I wouldn't advise acting as if you thought
that gave you the right to use it as yours. You could "copyright" the
words and music to the Star Spangled Banner, and the copyright office
wouldn't say peep to you (unless it were a _very_ boring day at the office).
Now trademark registration is a very different thing entirely ... and
costs a great deal more. Trademark lawyers _do_ spend a great deal of
time and energy (and of your money) checking your design against other
registered trademarks to make sure that it isn't too similar to them. But
that wasn't what this person did.
In my opinion, copyrighting a drawing of a heraldic design is a waste of
your $20. The other tricky bit to consider here is that when copyrighting
a work of art, _all_ you are copyrighting is that particular work of art,
not the concept behind it. You can copyright a drawing of your dog Spot,
but that doesn't mean that no one else has the right to draw a picture of
your dog Spot. What this person copyrighted was the specific drawing sent
off to the copyright office, _not_ the heraldic concept emblazoned there.
So even as far as copyright law goes, if someone else painted the same
design (especially if there were even marginal variations in the drawing
style) on a shield, the copyright holder has no legal right to prevent
such an action.
Please note: I am _not_ an expert at copyright law and cannot guarantee
the details of the above description, but I firmly believe that the
general picture is sound. I've registered copyrights for publications and
works of art before, and I've read the forms. It's pretty clear from them
what registration does and does not cover.
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
Richard Krajewski
>What happens if the College of Arms changes the rules to do a lot
>less mundane conflict checking, and someone else registers it?
>
>Assuming a trademark would be enforceable under these circumstances,
>would it be fair to someone who had registered a device in good
>faith in the SCA context to invoke mundane trademark law against
>them?
>
>Incidentally, once one has turned in forms with the proper fees
>paid, they should be able to get free resubmissions and appeals until
>you get something acceptable to you registered.
Yes but often times in my experience it seems that the submitter is
bludgeoned into accepting what the members of the College feel
his/her name/device should be.
How many times have devices in particular been rejected because
they conflict with some-ones highly subjective view of Periodic
Heraldic Art.
Though I do not know the gentleman concerned I can understand his
disillusionment at the College for what sometimes seems to be a
highly autocratic standpoint.
I see nothing dishonourable in what he did to accomplish his own
ends and ultimately enhance his enjoyment of the Current Middle
Ages - and if in the process maybe a few overly large Heraldic egos
were bruised so be it.
Richard de la Croix
Barony of Rowany
Lochac...West
Joseph M Meinhardt
>>rules taking precedence over my 1st Amendment rights of self-expression
>>in any of the forms _I_ ever signed ... did I miss a revision of the
>>waiver at some point ?
>
>Got to go with Dennis on this one. As long as the device I'm flying is
>reasonably unique, (I.e. doesn't make anyone else's too close) then I'm
>gonna fly the sucker outside of my tent if I feel like it.
>
>Patrick Gearman
At the begining of this thread, the good gentle with the insight to use
the "far-caller" stated that the only reason for being bounced was a
conflict with the US Military. Being that he got the US Gov to say
there was no conflict (the copyright) I see no dis-honor in his actions.
He was just triing to help establish that there was no real conflict with
the mundane world.
If the CoH had found other conflicts then I could understand some of the
rest of bantor on this thread.
joe
enn...@delphi.com
>> Same RULE is applied "at whim" to both badges, one flies, one dies.
>
>You can't argue whim without the complete details. You might be
>surprised - for example badge 1: a rapier, overall a flounder; badge 2: a
>pavilion, overall a rapier. In # 1, the flounder pretty much obscures
>the rapier completely, but in # 2 the rapier doesn't obscure the
>pavilion. # 1 bounces, # 2 passes the same rule. Yet both are charges
>overlaid by other charges.
There did not seem to be any obscurment problem to me. Laurel at the time
did not even mention obscurement in the rejection. Badge #2 was a rose
overlaying the common increscent-descrescent combo. The reason's for reject
were 1) Violation of rule disallowing overlaid charges on fieldless badge.
2) Besides, the crescents look like canoes anyway.
The reasons badge #1 passed were 1) Violation of rule disallowing overlaid
charges on a fieldless badge, but hey it looks ok anyway.
I call that whim. It soured me personally on the college from that point
forward. It's up to my lady whether she wants to pursure appeal or grandfather
rights.
-Enniaun
Mary Shafer
"meatball" in 1956/57, when the Space Act passed, creating NASA from
the NACA. In the early '80s, we had a fancy logo, better known as the
"worm", created by a highly paid designer. About a year ago, our
then-new Administrator allowed us to return to the meatball, to the
great relief of just about everyone.
The Army heralds do indeed check for conflicts--I know of a squadron
who got their patch bounced because it looked too much like a WW I
squadron's patch.
And then there are the Pukin' Dogs--a case where Congress mandated the
squadron patch. That one belongs to VF-something and they fly F-14s.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot
Josh Mittleman
Over the past couple weeks, I have read a series of discussions of the
heraldic rules for submissions. I would like to reply to two arguments
that have been advanced to support the system of regulation administered by
the College of Arms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Several posters, notably Master Steffan Silverwing, have argued that
without the rules and regulation of the College of Arms, Society heraldry
would quickly become a mass of inauthentic nonsense. Let us step around
the question of why he believes that it presently is anything else :) and
address the central point squarely.
This argument presumes that authenticity is something that must be required
of Societyfolk, who would otherwise debauch themselves in a riot of
modernity. I find that to be a self-defeating premise, if not simply
silly. If Societyfolk didn't really want to re-create medieval culture to
some degree, then no amount of regulation would turn them aside from 20th
Century Revels. And of course we do: Without any sort of regulation, we
manage to produce remarkable re-creative efforts in every other field of
endeavor. There is no reason to believe that heraldry is somehow
different. These are the same people who produce painstakingly-researched
and lovingly-crafted gowns and armor and food and woodcarving; what
possible reason is there to believe that the level of achievement in
heraldry would be any less than that in all other arts? Of course there is
none. Despite the tendency among some heralds to argue that we need to
target our heraldic system at the lowest common denominator, heraldry is a
great deal less complicated than many of the common arts practiced in our
Society; it is certainly more accessible to the beginner than most.
Without the registration system, Society heraldry would be just as good as
Society clothing or Society dancing or Society leatherwork.
The point, of course, is that the pro-regulation heralds don't want the
_same_ level of authenticity; they want more people participating at a
higher level of authenticity than in other arts. That's certainly a
laudable goal (or at least I think it is; and if you take that to be
foreshadowing, you're a clever puss). But using official power to mandate
that goal has several problems. For one thing, it doesn't work. Look at
the Society's heraldic system. It doesn't work. It has _never_ worked.
The heralds are dedicated, hardworking people. They aren't on ego-trips
and they aren't making decisions on whim, despite the anecdotes that we've
all heard. They are doing an impossibly hard job as well as they possibly
can. But it still doesn't work. More management analysis has been devoted
to the College of Arms than any other office in the Society. And it still
doesn't work. The level of authenticity is no better than any other
commonly-practiced Society art, and hundreds of people are locked out of
the use of armory by a system that they find too slow and too burdensome.
In the hands of a dedicated expert, the heraldic registration system is
usable; I can get anyone beautiful, authentic armory on the first try. But
there can never be enough experts to serve the entire population.
Requiring everyone to use a system that is opaque to most people is a sure
recipe for failure.
What I find most peculiar is the notion that everyone has to care about
having an authentic name. Some of us are interested in authentic names;
most of us aren't. Some of us are interested in authentic shoes; most of
us aren't. What makes names so important as to make it worth the godawful
effort we put into regulating their authenticity? Our formal rules say
nothing about "SCA names"; the only re-creation we are required to
undertake is an effort at period garb. Yet that is entirely unregulated,
while names are worthy of thousands of man-hours per year. Where's the
sense in that? Worst of all, in an effort to drag everyone up to the
equivalent of the minimal t-tunic/quick mead/cockaleekie soup level of
authenticity, the College has erected nearly insurmountable barriers to the
few who want to climb higher. Not only must everyone attain the same
minimal standard -- whether or not they are interested -- but everyone must
_stay_ at that minimal standard, no matter how learned they get! No matter
how carefully you want to re-create your 16th century Polish persona, you
can only use armory that fits your culture if it also fits 14th century
England. No matter how appropriate it would be for your Carolingian
lower-class persona to have a single name, you have to register _two_
names.
The rules and registration are not accomplishing the goals for which they
were created, and the assertion that they are necessary for the continuance
of Society study of names and armory is hollow. The system turns the
relatively simple processes of choosing and using names and armory into a
harrowing ordeal that prevents many from ever investigating an important
feature of medieval culture, and actively hinders the work of the most
dedicated researchers in the field. After two-and-half decades of striving
to improve it, maybe it's time to admit that this system was a mistake.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A few posters, most notably Master Fridrikr, have asserted that we all have
a moral duty to abide by the regulations of the College of Arms. He and
others have used words like "dishonorable", "cutting corners", and
"cheating" to describe those who would display armory without the sanction
of the College of Arms. I'm not particularly focussing on Fridrikr: It is
all too common for heralds to appeal to honor or courtesy to buttress their
arguments. When the bureaucracy uses such terms, it is hardly surprising
that the reaction is angry and defensive. If you attack my honor, then you
give me the right to point out the quicksand on which you stand. And so
the argument has progressed once more to a litany of horror stories of how
the College lost, mangled, mis-handled, or confused submissions.
The original argument seems to grow from the very disturbing premise that
the populace is honor-bound to follow rules simply by virtue of their being
rules. Honor does not demand unswerving obedience to rules. On the
contrary: The strongest demands of honor are often to violate rules. Even
if the Rules for Heraldic Submissions were intended to define proper
behavior in the Society, honor would very likely require many of us to
ignore them. But those rules do not define proper behavior. The College
of Arms does not define proper behavior, even in the province of the use of
names and armory. It defines its own registration service and issues
guidelines for the populace to use as they see fit.
The Rules for Heraldic Submissions is not a guide to honor. It is not a
handbook of courtesy. It is not even part of the governing documents of
the Society. It is merely the procedures established by an office of the
corporation for those who wish to purchase certain services. The College
of Arms exists to educate and, unfortunately, to regulate registration.
That is more than enough for any bureaucracy. Let's stop trying to give it
the governance of our honor.
===========================================================================
craig thomson
[much deleted...]
: By the way, I don't think the trademark people (which I assume is
: who Stephen dealt with) check for heraldic conflict. If I am
: correct, then the arguement that the government asserted that it
: did not conflict is invalid.
: Does anyone know the facts of this? As far as I know there is
: no authority in the UNited States which will register personal
: armory *as armory*.
: --
: Eirikr Mjoksiglandi Sigurdharson
: ...uunet!astrid!eirikr Shire of Heatherwyne
: astrid!eir...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
: 70327...@compuserve.com
No, the copyright office did not check for heraldic conflict.
Nor do I believe that there is ANY office in the US that checks
against genuine armory registered in another country. Nor can you lay
valid claim to genuine armory through any US office, to my knowledge.
The CoA did the checking, and determined that "vert, two chevronels
braced, a bordure argent" (my submission) is the same thing as "azure,
two chevronels braced, a bordure argent" (the military badge, I'm
told). I disagreed, and I believe that if it ever comes down to it, a
court of law will disagree as well.
But why should it ever come to that, especially since there is no
conflict with any SCA device, and I'll probably never display the
thang outside of an SCA setting, anyhow?
This, I think, is more of a battle of principle against
bureaucracy. Why do we limit ourselves to "heraldry" from such a
brief period and such a small region? Why can't a Celt display
symbolic knotwork on her center-grip shield? Why can't a Samurai
display his name in calligraphy on his banner, his shield or his
pavilion?
I agree with Arval that it's time to re-think the regulation of
"medieval armory." The CoA should be there to advise and counsel,
not to dictate and reject.
Stephen
craig thomson
: Joseph M Meinhardt (t...@clark.edu) wrote:
[good definitions deleted...]
: In my opinion, copyrighting a drawing of a heraldic design is a waste of
: your $20. The other tricky bit to consider here is that when copyrighting
: a work of art, _all_ you are copyrighting is that particular work of art,
: not the concept behind it. You can copyright a drawing of your dog Spot,
: but that doesn't mean that no one else has the right to draw a picture of
: your dog Spot. What this person copyrighted was the specific drawing sent
: off to the copyright office, _not_ the heraldic concept emblazoned there.
: So even as far as copyright law goes, if someone else painted the same
: design (especially if there were even marginal variations in the drawing
: style) on a shield, the copyright holder has no legal right to prevent
: such an action.
"Ah," said he, "not necessarily." By this logic, Disney has no
"legal right" to prevent me from drawing Donald Duck smoking a bong in
a brothel (blasphemy!). Try publishing such a thing and see what
happens....
What the copyright registration DOES do is register the work with
a date for possible future legal reference in event of a conflict.
Copyright law automatically protects any drawing, registered or not,
the moment it is created! But to pursue any legal action requires a
registered work, get it? The design is protected, but not so the
shield, pavilion, or other item it is printed upon (that requires a
patent).
So, if you try to recreate and display any copyrighted design,
logo, etc., and the owner of said design wishes to prevent it, you'd
better hope that your version was registered first, or your day in
court will be most unpleasant.
Stephen MacTerre
(not a lawyer, either, but I have read the literature)
Heather Rose Jones
: Heather Rose Jones (hrj...@uclink.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: : your dog Spot. What this person copyrighted was the specific drawing sent
: : So even as far as copyright law goes, if someone else painted the same
: : design (especially if there were even marginal variations in the drawing
: : style) on a shield, the copyright holder has no legal right to prevent
: : such an action.
: "Ah," said he, "not necessarily." By this logic, Disney has no
: "legal right" to prevent me from drawing Donald Duck smoking a bong in
: a brothel (blasphemy!). Try publishing such a thing and see what
: happens....
But I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Disney has Donald Duck
_trademarked_ which, as I've said, is another animal altogether.
: What the copyright registration DOES do is register the work with
: a date for possible future legal reference in event of a conflict.
: Copyright law automatically protects any drawing, registered or not,
: the moment it is created! But to pursue any legal action requires a
: registered work, get it? The design is protected, but not so the
: shield, pavilion, or other item it is printed upon (that requires a
: patent).
You've got it right that the _drawing_ is copyrighted (and things like
photographic or xerographic reproductions of it) but that's a different
matter entirely from the _design_ (i.e., the concept of "a white field
with a vertical blue stripe and a couple of red rearing horses around
it") being protected.
But it would be nice to get a professional opinion interjected here, if
there are any floating about.
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
Heather Rose Jones
: endeavor. There is no reason to believe that heraldry is somehow
: different. These are the same people who produce painstakingly-researched
: and lovingly-crafted gowns and armor and food and woodcarving; what
: possible reason is there to believe that the level of achievement in
: heraldry would be any less than that in all other arts? Of course there is
: none. Despite the tendency among some heralds to argue that we need to
There is one major point on which names/armory _are_ different from
clothing, food, and woodcarving. When you've been around a while, learned
something about medieval clothing, and decided you want to wear something
more authentic, it's a matter of very little moment to graciously hand
your old tunic off to some grateful non-sewing newcomer and make yourself
new clothes. When you've been around a while, learned something about
medieval names/armory, and decided you want to use something more
authentic, most people find it very difficult to blithely discard the
name or arms they have been using for years and put on something new. We
see this all the time when Lady Alethinglia finally decides to register
some armory (and thus needs to register a name) and gasps, "Oh, but I've
been using Alethinglia for eight years! All my friends are used to it,
they'd never be able to call me anything else. I absolutely have to keep
using Alethinglia!"
Now it _is_ possible to change your armory and/or name even after many
years of use and neither be lynched by your friends nor become socially
invisible. But most people just don't see it that way. So it isn't a
matter of assuming that people who care to will eventually come around
and change to a more authentic name or device, experience shows that even
those who profess to _want_ authentic names/armory find it very difficult
to shake off that first choice.
This argument does not address the question of whether the SCA has any
vested interest in setting standards of authenticity in any particular
situation or activity, but I _do_ firmly believe that names/armory do
have some different problems and concerns than less personal medieval
accessories.
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
Mark Schuldenfrei
"Ah," said he, "not necessarily." By this logic, Disney has no
"legal right" to prevent me from drawing Donald Duck smoking a bong in
a brothel (blasphemy!). Try publishing such a thing and see what
happens....
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the differences between
trademark registration, and copyright. I think a better real example (and,
in my mind, a poor judicial decision) is the legal battle between the author
of Outland and Disney, over Mortimer Mouse. (A chewed ears, chain smoking
bipedal black colored mouse with a white face, red shorts with one gold
button, and large shoes.) Disney won that one.
No offense, but you don't seem to understand the basics of intellectual
property law (which is all I understand of intellectual property law.) This
puts you in good company, but doesn't advance your argument.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
"Sit down, shut up, and read the magazines you ordered."
craig thomson
[much deleted]
: Thank God we have the Society to escape from from mindless bureaucracy.
[...]
: Bartholomew of Wolf(silent 'e')twain
: Proud owner of hateful and offensive, yet quite period armory
*Snicker*
Stephen
none
--
My Lord and I visited the Heraldry Branch of the U.S. Army a few years ago.
It is located on one entire floor of an obsure small post somewhere in
VA. At that time they did not have an armorial, but rows and rows of every-
thing that they have registered, which they hand checked each time they
needed to. There are also various heraldry books out on Military heraldry
in the U.S. as well as others. They were very nice accomodating people.
My lord could probably remember more details like -where- the silly
building actually was.... :) (I am not a herald, but I have cried the
camp at Pennsic and taught it to newbies and children).
Astridhr
Tanner Lovelace
> What the copyright registration DOES do is register the work with
>a date for possible future legal reference in event of a conflict.
>Copyright law automatically protects any drawing, registered or not,
>the moment it is created! But to pursue any legal action requires a
>registered work, get it? The design is protected, but not so the
>shield, pavilion, or other item it is printed upon (that requires a
>patent).
> So, if you try to recreate and display any copyrighted design,
>logo, etc., and the owner of said design wishes to prevent it, you'd
>better hope that your version was registered first, or your day in
>court will be most unpleasant.
>Stephen MacTerre
>(not a lawyer, either, but I have read the literature)
Legal action does *not* require a registered work. What it requires
is proof of the date of creation. An easier way, sometimes referred to
a "poor man's copyright" is just place whatever you want in a sealed
envelope and mail it, registered mail, to yourself. When it gets
there and you sign for it, take it, *unopened* and file it away. Then
if you have to go to court, the court can look at the official date
from the US Postal Service and then open the *sealed* envelope and
look at the design. Copyright is from the moment of creation. Copyright
registration just "officially" notes when that moment of creation
happened, but it is by no means the only way of doing that.
Lord Kendrick Wayfarer
Barony of Storvik
Kingdom of Atlantia
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanner Lovelace | love...@netcom.com | D / C / Fence
Takoma Park | love...@cap.gwu.edu | ()~ --+-\\ Fence
Maryland | love...@cuc.edu | / > | \ Fence
----------------------------------------------------------------
craig thomson
[deletia...]
: We
: see this all the time when Lady Alethinglia finally decides to register
: some armory (and thus needs to register a name) and gasps, "Oh, but I've
: been using Alethinglia for eight years! All my friends are used to it,
: they'd never be able to call me anything else. I absolutely have to keep
: using Alethinglia!"
Exactly! So, even though Lady A. has made an attempt at a period
name which she enjoys and is known by, it is entirely possible that
the regulation procedure of the CoA will bounce it for
"inauthenticity," or other such rot.
So, in order to register her device, she must change her name!
Doesn't sound like a very good system to me. Names should be like any
other aspect in our Society - a newby can either painstakingly
research a completely documentable medieval name (although this may
take some time, during which time she is known as "Doris" or
something), or she can jump right in with an equally medieval-sounding
(but not so documentable) name to go by. It should be her choice how
she is to be known for the rest of her SCA life, not that of the CoA.
Everyone's level of authenticity should be their own, whether it
be for names, devices, clothing, FOOTGEAR, UNDERWEAR, jewelry, etc..
As Lady A. progresses in the Society, she may decide to pursue a
higher level of authenticity for her name, but it must be HER CHOICE!
For anyone else to demand otherwise smacks of "Authenticity
Naziism", and ruins the game for everyone.
Stephen MacTerre
Card-carrying member since 1990
Lyle Gray
: Greetings from Arval!
[deletia]
: The original argument seems to grow from the very disturbing premise that
: the populace is honor-bound to follow rules simply by virtue of their being
: rules. Honor does not demand unswerving obedience to rules. On the
: contrary: The strongest demands of honor are often to violate rules. Even
: if the Rules for Heraldic Submissions were intended to define proper
: behavior in the Society, honor would very likely require many of us to
: ignore them...
IMO, honor would likely require many of us to either work to change the rules,
or work to abolish them, but not to simply ignore them.
-------------------------------------------------------NON ANIMAM CONTINE
Lyle H. Gray Internet (personal): gr...@cs.umass.edu
Quodata Corporation Phone: (203) 728-6777, FAX: (203) 247-0249
--(My opinions are my own, and do not represent my employer's opinions)--
craig thomson
: Legal action does *not* require a registered work. What it requires
: is proof of the date of creation. An easier way, sometimes referred to
: a "poor man's copyright" is just place whatever you want in a sealed
: envelope and mail it, registered mail, to yourself. When it gets
: there and you sign for it, take it, *unopened* and file it away. Then
: if you have to go to court, the court can look at the official date
: from the US Postal Service and then open the *sealed* envelope and
: look at the design. Copyright is from the moment of creation. Copyright
: registration just "officially" notes when that moment of creation
: happened, but it is by no means the only way of doing that.
: Lord Kendrick Wayfarer
: Barony of Storvik
: Kingdom of Atlantia
This is all too true, and I have heard of this method. What I
meant by "registered" was the procedure to date the work in question
through a federal agency - in this case, the Post Office.
Stephen
Joel Polowin
>Tanner Lovelace (love...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Legal action does *not* require a registered work. What it requires
>: is proof of the date of creation. An easier way, sometimes referred to
>: a "poor man's copyright" is just place whatever you want in a sealed
>: envelope and mail it, registered mail, to yourself. When it gets
>: there and you sign for it, take it, *unopened* and file it away. Then
>: if you have to go to court, the court can look at the official date
>: from the US Postal Service and then open the *sealed* envelope and
>: look at the design.
>
>meant by "registered" was the procedure to date the work in question
>through a federal agency - in this case, the Post Office.
I don't know much about registered mail in *my* country, let alone yours...
but what's to stop you from mailing a bunch of unsealed empty envelopes
to yourself, and then filling them at a later date? Or, more to the
point, what's to stop someone from suggesting that that's what you did?
As far as I understand things, this "poor man's copyright" has no legal
value whatsoever.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <ercil...@astrid.UUCP> er...@astrid.UUCP writes:
> My Lord and I visited the Heraldry Branch of the U.S. Army a few years ago.
> It is located on one entire floor of an obsure small post somewhere in
> VA. At that time they did not have an armorial, but rows and rows of every-
> thing that they have registered, which they hand checked each time they
> needed to. There are also various heraldry books out on Military heraldry
> in the U.S. as well as others. They were very nice accomodating people.
It is located at Cameron Station, in Alexandria, just outside of DC.
Cameron Station is due to close at the end of the year, but I don't know where
the Heraldry Branch will go. Probably Fort McNair, since I have not heard
about that unit being transfered outside the Military District of Washington.
--
"Apparently on New Texas, killing a politician was not _malum in se_, and was
_malum prohibitorum_ only to the extent that what the politician got was in
excess of what he deserved."
-H. Beam Piper, _Lone Star Planet/A Planet For Texans_
Josh Mittleman
> Why do we limit ourselves to "heraldry" from such a brief period and such
> a small region? Why can't a Celt display symbolic knotwork on her
> center-grip shield? Why can't a Samurai display his name in calligraphy
> on his banner, his shield or his pavilion?
They can. What you are really asking is why they can't _register_ those
things. There are some things that the College of Arms refuses to register
which clearly are medieval armory; examples have been given many times, so
I won't go into it again. I think there is no excuse whatsoever for the
College of Arms of the SCA to exclude any period armory from its scope.
On the other hand, the examples you listed are not armory. Not everything
is heraldry. Many kinds of insignia were used to identify oneself or one's
affiliations, and only a small fraction of them are armory. It is
altogether proper for the College of Arms to limit itself to armory. What
you may not realize is that other kinds of insignia are entirely outside
the purview of the College of Arms. Your Celt can use her knotwork and
your samurai can use his calligraphy, and neither of them need spare a
thought for the College of Arms because the College of Arms doesn't even
presume to regulate those things.
Josh Mittleman
> There is one major point on which names/armory _are_ different from
> clothing, food, and woodcarving. When you've been around a while, learned
> something about medieval clothing, and decided you want to wear something
> more authentic, it's a matter of very little moment to graciously hand
> your old tunic off to some grateful non-sewing newcomer and make yourself
> new clothes. When you've been around a while, learned something about
> medieval names/armory, and decided you want to use something more
> authentic, most people find it very difficult to blithely discard the
> name or arms they have been using for years and put on something new.
Thus far, you have a good point; but then you wrote:
> We see this all the time when Lady Alethinglia finally decides to
> register some armory (and thus needs to register a name) and gasps, "Oh,
> but I've been using Alethinglia for eight years! All my friends are used
> to it, they'd never be able to call me anything else. I absolutely have
> to keep using Alethinglia!"
Stephen MacTerre caught the flaw in your logic: Lady Alethinglia decided
that she wanted to have armory, not that she wanted to have a more
authentic name. The problem arose only because the College of Arms insists
on tying the registration of armory to the registration of a name (and then
trying to forbid the use of unregistered armory). It refuses the good lady
the opportunity to choose to learn about armory without _also_ learning
about names. Is there anyone who doesn't think that this is silly and more
than a little self-defeating?
If the good lady _had_ decided that she wanted to have a more authentic
name, then she either would have picked one or would have come for help in
picking one. That she did not come to ask help picking a more authentic
name is evidence that she isn't interested enough in authentic names to go
to the trouble of changing her name. I agree that this is a problem and
that the College of Arms should aim to avoid that problem by helping
newcomers to choose authentic names at the outset and by encouraging more
people to be interested in names as re-creative artifacts. But it seems
pretty peculiar to refuse to teach people one subject because they are
uninterested in another.
===========================================================================
Josh Mittleman
me> The original argument seems to grow from the very disturbing premise
me> that the populace is honor-bound to follow rules simply by virtue of
me> their being rules. Honor does not demand unswerving obedience to
me> rules. On the contrary: The strongest demands of honor are often to
me> violate rules. Even if the Rules for Heraldic Submissions were
me> intended to define proper behavior in the Society, honor would very
me> likely require many of us to ignore them...
Lyle> IMO, honor would likely require many of us to either work to change
Lyle> the rules, or work to abolish them, but not to simply ignore them.
I will not presume to define your honor, Lyle, just I hope that the
pro-regulation crowd will stop trying to define mine. But I hope you will
allow me to ask a few questions.
In my posting, I made the point that the rules of the College of Arms
govern submissions, not behavior. Do you agree? If so, I would read "not
to simply ignore them" to mean that when using the submission and
registration service, you would follow those rules in preparing and judging
submissions. Or do you mean that you accept those rules as governing your
behavior? If so, I have a deeper question: Clearly you do not believe that
you are honor-bound to obey _any_ rule without exception. For example, I
could make rules: No one may wear green at Society events. You would
ignore that rule because it is foolish and because I have no authority to
govern your behavior. If you feel that your honor obliges you to grant the
College of Arms the power to govern your behavior, then my question is:
Why? On what basis do you feel that the College of Arms has the authority
to tell you how to play the game?
Arval.
Tanner Lovelace
>Tanner Lovelace (love...@netcom.com) wrote:
>Stephen
I still don't see how this gets you what you want. Copyright is very
flimsy in this regard. Besides which, in order to sue anyone successfully,
you have to prove that you've lost money. (How much do you charge to
display it at feasts? :) The only thing I think would get close to
what you want is trademark protection. BTW, you mentioned in an earilier
post the idea of displaying it with at little tm in the corner. I hope
you meant after you trademarked it. Copyright (registered or not)
allows you to put a (c) on your work while trademark allows you to put
either (r) or tm. I think one is perhaps state and the other federal,
although it is *entirely* possible that I'm wrong on this.
Lord Kendrick Wayfarer
Barony of Storvik
Kingdom of Atlantia
--
Tanner Lovelace
>Joel
>pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca
Can you actually imagine that the postal service would send unsealed
envelopes without getting them at the very least dirty if not completely
mangled. Letters go through electronic sorting machines that react
very badly to things sticking out from the back of the envelope. Besides
which, with registered mail, you have to sign for the envelope, and the
postal service keeps a record of it. (For how long, I have no idea.)
I am assured, though, by a friend of mine who is a composer that it
really does work. He gave up on using the governmental registration
years ago, and now only uses this method.
Lord Kendrick Wayfarer
Barony of Storvik
Kingdom of Atlantia
--
Josh Mittleman
> However, the East Kingdom system of Awards/Grants/Patents of Arms appears
> to be set up that way, since the scribes are not supposed to put Arms on
> scrolls for these honors unless the Arms are registered, and are only
> supposed to put them on using the registered blazon. Brigantia's
> signature on the scroll is supposed to attest to this.
This is not strictly correct, though I understand why people would commonly
think that it is. A principal herald's signature on a scroll attests to
nothing other than that the name and device are registered, and that they
are correctly rendered (and, in some kingdoms, that the scroll meets the
standards of the scribal guild). The registered blazon has no special
significance; it is simply the blazon that Laurel chose to use. Any blazon
which accurately describes the device is correct. But it is also important
to understand that the herald's signature on the scroll has no "legal"
meaning. A scroll is simply a record that an award was given. Anyone can
create such a document, and can put anything on it that he chooses. The
royalty can sign and/or present any document they please. A scroll can
bear any arms that the scribe or recipient want to emblazon, registered or
not.
Joel Polowin
>Can you actually imagine that the postal service would send unsealed
>envelopes without getting them at the very least dirty if not completely
>mangled. Letters go through electronic sorting machines that react
>very badly to things sticking out from the back of the envelope.
So: you take your empty envelope -- or, if you prefer, an envelope with a
couple of pages of scrap paper in it -- and stick down the flap in a couple
of spots with a few tiny drops of water at the edge. This is enough to
hold the envelope closed most of the time through the postal process, and
easy enough to open when you get the envelope back.
>Besides
>which, with registered mail, you have to sign for the envelope, and the
>postal service keeps a record of it. (For how long, I have no idea.)
Again, all that this proves is that the *envelope* went through the mail
at that time, and says nothing about the contents.
>I am assured, though, by a friend of mine who is a composer that it
>really does work. He gave up on using the governmental registration
>years ago, and now only uses this method.
<*shrug*> I am assured by friends who are composers that this so-called
"poor man's copyright" has no legal value. I'm not sure what your friend
means by "really does work" -- has he actually won a legal dispute with it?
Joel / Evan Little
pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca
Lyle Gray
: Greetings from Arval! Lyle replied to me.
: me> The original argument seems to grow from the very disturbing premise
: me> that the populace is honor-bound to follow rules simply by virtue of
: me> their being rules. Honor does not demand unswerving obedience to
: me> rules. On the contrary: The strongest demands of honor are often to
: me> violate rules. Even if the Rules for Heraldic Submissions were
: me> intended to define proper behavior in the Society, honor would very
: me> likely require many of us to ignore them...
: Lyle> IMO, honor would likely require many of us to either work to change
: Lyle> the rules, or work to abolish them, but not to simply ignore them.
: I will not presume to define your honor, Lyle, just I hope that the
: pro-regulation crowd will stop trying to define mine. But I hope you will
: allow me to ask a few questions.
Ah, oops, wait a minute, I think I know where the miscommunication came in
here. Arval, my position was based on the assumption that the rule being
ignored or changed was put in place with valid authority. It appears to me,
now, that you position was based on there being a lack of valid authority. In
that case, I agree with you, and would probably ignore the rule as well.
Lyle FitzWilliam
Lyle Gray
: Greetings from Arval! Lyle replied to me.
: me> The original argument seems to grow from the very disturbing premise
: me> that the populace is honor-bound to follow rules simply by virtue of
: me> their being rules. Honor does not demand unswerving obedience to
: me> rules. On the contrary: The strongest demands of honor are often to
: me> violate rules. Even if the Rules for Heraldic Submissions were
: me> intended to define proper behavior in the Society, honor would very
: me> likely require many of us to ignore them...
: Lyle> IMO, honor would likely require many of us to either work to change
: Lyle> the rules, or work to abolish them, but not to simply ignore them.
: I will not presume to define your honor, Lyle, just I hope that the
: pro-regulation crowd will stop trying to define mine.
Well, that's why I used "IMO", and "many of us".
: But I hope you will allow me to ask a few questions.
As you might know, I'm quite fond of the phrase, "The only dumb question is
the one that isn't asked." Please, feel free to ask.
: In my posting, I made the point that the rules of the College of Arms
: govern submissions, not behavior. Do you agree?
I agree, absolutely. "Heraldic Hit Squads" are right out.
Although I did have a discussion with one gentle who was flying "Or, a lion
rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory" once. My main comment
was that he was displaying it so that the lion was on its back. This led to
several heralds discussing how such would be described in a blazon, with
"mourant" (dead) being the favorite term. ;-)
: If so, I would read "not
: to simply ignore them" to mean that when using the submission and
: registration service, you would follow those rules in preparing and judging
: submissions.
That's correct. If I disagreed with a particular rule, I would make some
effort at changing or removing the rule.
: Or do you mean that you accept those rules as governing your
: behavior?
No, I don't. The CoA doesn't govern my behavior with regards to display of
heraldry, I do.
: If so, I have a deeper question: Clearly you do not believe that
: you are honor-bound to obey _any_ rule without exception.
That's true. I'm not even close to being "Lawful", in that sense.
: For example, I
: could make rules: No one may wear green at Society events. You would
: ignore that rule because it is foolish and because I have no authority to
: govern your behavior.
I also wear a lot of green, since it's in my Arms. ;-)
I was going to state a similar example in my original reply: Everyone must
wear shoes at Society events. We could debate _that_ one for quite a while,
but we would need to start a new thread for it. ;-)
Both could fall under sumptuary laws, and depending on circumstances, could be
reasonable _in_context_. If the Royalty declared such a law (or whim), then
the decision to abide by it might be less easy to make. It depends on how you
play the game.
But the decision would be mine, not the Royalty's, in that case.
: If you feel that your honor obliges you to grant the
: College of Arms the power to govern your behavior, then my question is:
: Why? On what basis do you feel that the College of Arms has the authority
: to tell you how to play the game?
Actually, I don't feel that way. I govern my own behavior, based at least
partly on perception of possible consequences.
However, the East Kingdom system of Awards/Grants/Patents of Arms appears to
be set up that way, since the scribes are not supposed to put Arms on scrolls
for these honors unless the Arms are registered, and are only supposed to put
them on using the registered blazon. Brigantia's signature on the scroll is
supposed to attest to this. The bearer of the scroll can do anything that he
wants with it, once it's in his hands.
When I submitted my first name and device, I did so for two reasons: I was
told, "That's the way it is done," and I wanted to have validation for my
research of name and device. I had been in the Society for less than a year,
and my reasoning has changed summat since then.
BTW, I have never had a submission rejected.
Lyle FitzWilliam
------------------------------------------------------ NON ANIMAM CONTINE
Dave Montuori
> ...A scroll can bear any arms that the scribe or recipient want to
>emblazon, registered or not.
Not in Atlantia, and probably not in the East. (Will someone in the know
please correct me if I'm wrong; Brigantia, Treblerose, whichever reads
this and whoever you may be at the time... aren't office changeovers
wonderful... oh stop the evil chuckling already Fridrikr....)
A scroll is not a scroll until the Principal Herald attests to the
registration of the name (and armory if there is any) on it. This
also serves as a doublecheck to make sure TRM didn't get the name
wrong, which might otherwise have some weird side effects. Until
the PH signs off on it, you have a "promissory," and any spaces
for armory on a promissory are supposed to be left *blank.*
How much of this is written into Kingdom Law and how much is just
strong custom probably varies between kingdoms.
Evan da Collaureo, whose boss (Triton) just went through all this
with the Crown and the Signet....
dmontuor%telene...@uunet.uu.net
Karol Harding
: 33...@telenet.telenet.com> dmon...@telenet.com (Dave Montuori) writes:
: A scroll is not a scroll until the Principal Herald attests to the
: registration of the name (and armory if there is any) on it. This
: also serves as a doublecheck to make sure TRM didn't get the name
: wrong, which might otherwise have some weird side effects. Until
: the PH signs off on it, you have a "promissory," and any spaces
: for armory on a promissory are supposed to be left *blank.*
: How much of this is written into Kingdom Law and how much is just
: strong custom probably varies between kingdoms.
: There is nothing in East Kingdom law that says any such thing. In actual
: practice, since our Scribes are incomparable, a scroll is ready for almost
: every award the Crown hands out. It is signed by the Crowns, and sometimes
: by the Herald, if the scribe left room for him to sign.
: We don't seem to care much for registration of names and armory, except to
: get the scroll exactly the way the recipient would like it. We certainly
: don't play name games with such things. If a scroll isn't ready, sometimes
: a quick "promissory" note is given, with the scroll text done in a quick
: hand, and minimal ornamentation. But that has nothing to do with heralds.
: Since most folks frame their scrolls, and hang them on the wall, it hardly
: matters what legalism or silly name you would use for them.
: Isn't this the sort of hair-splitting that gives us heralds such horrid
: reputations?
: Tibor
Actually, more to the point, in the Outlands it's an AWARD as soon
as its read in court, whether there's a scroll or not. I was Deputy
Kingdom Scribe for a while and was told by my then-Scribe overseer
that they couldn't get a new scroll just for not haveing their name
spelled right (this was not for any scroll which the Herald actually
had to sign, like a final AOA). Basically if you have no registered
name/device there IS no wrong name, since you don't have one.
I thought this an interesting viewpoint at the time.
(Tibor - I hope this post means that you're getting better ..
Get well soon!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ...The moment one knows how, one begins
CHALA THE JOYFUL DANCER | to die a little. Living is a form of not
| being sure, of not knowing what next or
(\o/) (\o/) (\o/) (\o/) | how.....One leaps in the dark!
(/|\) (/|\) (/|\) (/|\) | -Agnes Demille, Dance Choreographer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
: --
Mark Schuldenfrei
registration of the name (and armory if there is any) on it. This
also serves as a doublecheck to make sure TRM didn't get the name
wrong, which might otherwise have some weird side effects. Until
the PH signs off on it, you have a "promissory," and any spaces
for armory on a promissory are supposed to be left *blank.*
How much of this is written into Kingdom Law and how much is just
strong custom probably varies between kingdoms.
There is nothing in East Kingdom law that says any such thing. In actual
practice, since our Scribes are incomparable, a scroll is ready for almost
every award the Crown hands out. It is signed by the Crowns, and sometimes
by the Herald, if the scribe left room for him to sign.
We don't seem to care much for registration of names and armory, except to
get the scroll exactly the way the recipient would like it. We certainly
don't play name games with such things. If a scroll isn't ready, sometimes
a quick "promissory" note is given, with the scroll text done in a quick
hand, and minimal ornamentation. But that has nothing to do with heralds.
Since most folks frame their scrolls, and hang them on the wall, it hardly
matters what legalism or silly name you would use for them.
Isn't this the sort of hair-splitting that gives us heralds such horrid
reputations?
Tibor
Josh Mittleman
> ...A scroll can bear any arms that the scribe or recipient want to
> emblazon, registered or not.
Evan de Collaureo replied:
> A scroll is not a scroll until the Principal Herald attests to the
> registration of the name (and armory if there is any) on it. This also
> serves as a doublecheck to make sure TRM didn't get the name wrong, which
> might otherwise have some weird side effects. Until the PH signs off on
> it, you have a "promissory," and any spaces for armory on a promissory
> are supposed to be left *blank.*
That is the sort of pointless distinction that has won Society heralds the
kind regard they enjoy through these lands. What difference is there
between the "promissory" without the herald's signature and the "scroll"
with the herald's signature? None at all. In actual practice, a scroll is
simply a commemorative gift from the realm to the award recipient. In the
absurdly unlikely event that the scroll were ever actually presented as
proof of the existance of a disputed award, the herald's signature would
not matter a whit. And we can rest assured that no herald would ever
accept a signed a scroll as conclusive proof of the registration of a name
or device. In real life, the Crown can hand out any document it wishes,
bearing any name or armory that it wishes, and anything the Crown hands out
is called a scroll by all but a few bureaucrats.
For your information, the Eastern College of Heralds got out of the
business of trying to regulate scrolls years ago. Scrolls conferring
armigerous rank usually still include a space for the signature of a
herald; when I was in office, I allowed any of my senior staff to sign in
my place. That signature attested to the registration of the name and
device, but is taken in the East to have no other significance. In my
experience, the Crown, the scribes, and the award recipients think of that
signature only as an extra formal witness to the award ceremony, which
strikes me as a much healthier approach and more consistent with medieval
practice concerning important legal documents.
Arval.
SandraDodd
awards. I've heard of some really weird logical and linguistic
contortions. A scroll is a piece of paper rolled up, so if an award is
presented with a piece of flat art in a frame (which I think is tacky,
giving framed scrolls) it isn't a scroll, by the main definition of
scroll. But wait! I'm talking about the English language and history,
and the question had to do with the SCA (which often sets aside realities
of language and history).
In our kingdom (Outlands) the distinguishing term is "arms" scroll. An
"arms scroll" (a.k.a. "final scroll") can't be finished/real/presented
without the name being spelled exactly as registered and the blazon being
precisely to the letter and to the punctuation what is registered with the
Laurel King/Queen of Arms, and then must have the signature of the
Principal Herald attesting that the perfection exists. Other things are
also scrolls (commendations for being good people, promissories,
proclamations read when people get awards from baronial level on up), but
aren't *ARMS* scrolls unless they deal with conferring or confirming arms.
I believe this is true in several other kingdoms as well.
AElflaed (not a herald, but some of my best friends are heralds...)
[Wasn't there a herald around here saying I didn't know anything about the
SCA? Or a former herald?]
none
>Er, the US Army has a heraldry branch.
Yep. It's called "The Institute of Heraldry" and was physically
on Cameron Station a few years ago. Very nice people, quite
willing to talk with random visitors (call ahead, though, especially
if you have a particular interest). I don't know if they're still
there -- Cameron Station has been on the base closing list and
I don't know its current status.
By charter, TIOH provides heraldic services to all branches of the
government. As near as I can tell, it's the closest thing to a
College of Arms in the US. But they don't deal with individual
arms at all.
>The Army heralds do indeed check for conflicts--I know of a squadron
>who got their patch bounced because it looked too much like a WW I
>squadron's patch.
That was one of the questions I asked when I visited. Their mechanism
for conflict checking is limited at best. They will not approve
insignia if they are aware of a conflict -- but I was told by
one of their designers that the only mechanism they have for checking
is to walk the wall of unit distinctive insignia (they have a display
of UDI that would make an insignia collector drool -- one of their
functions is approving the manufacture of the physical insignia)
--
Eirikr Mjoksiglandi Sigurdharson
...uunet!astrid!eirikr Shire of Heatherwyne
astrid!eir...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
70327...@compuserve.com
Michael A. Chance
>re: Framed Scrolls. I've never seen one, so it's a new idea. But given that
>getting the silly things framed can cost close to $100, it's not
>precisely an _inexpensive_ gift...
Of course, a custom made (as opposed to a colored photocopied) scroll
is pretty valuable in it's own right. A professional artist would
charge $100 and up for most of the "mass produced" scrolls handed out
at a typical court. I usually adivse friends who've been newly
elevated to the Peerage to get their peerage scrolls appraised by a
professional art appraiser, and be prepared to get a artwork rider to
their homeowner's or renter's insurance policy.
Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc3...@sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: mch...@crl.com
mch...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Pattie McGregor
SandraDodd <sandr...@aol.com> wrote:
>Kingdoms differ in their terminology concerning pieces of paper given with
>awards. I've heard of some really weird logical and linguistic
>contortions. A scroll is a piece of paper rolled up, so if an award is
>presented with a piece of flat art in a frame (which I think is tacky,
>giving framed scrolls) it isn't a scroll, by the main definition of
>scroll. But wait! I'm talking about the English language and history,
>and the question had to do with the SCA (which often sets aside realities
>of language and history).
re: Framed Scrolls. I've never seen one, so it's a new idea. But given that
getting the silly things framed can cost close to $100, it's not
precisely an _inexpensive_ gift...
>
siobhan
===========================================================================
Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor
Sharing her time between Crosston & 3331 Kimberly Road
Mountain's Gate/Golden Rivers Cameron Park, CA 95682
p...@cygnus.com (916) 677-6607
sio...@lloyd.com
"That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders. If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!"
-Joe Chew, on the net
David W. James
> So why do you feel this is dishonorable? Is it any less
>dishonorable to let me go to this day, without hearing WORD ONE about
>my first submission (I still have the canceled check, so I know it was
>received)?
Did you ask?
If not, why not?
If you did, what did you get as an answer?
>In fact, the only notice I have received about my second
>submission is by word of mouth from my local herald! I know that most
>of the work is done on a volunteer basis, but let's get real.
Not most of the work. *ALL* of the work in the college of arms is done
by volunteers. Unpaid volunteers. A number of whom are financially
contributing directly to make the system work at all (most of the heralds
I know buy their own stamps and often don't charge for the photocopying.)
It is not unusual for people who's devices have problems spotted at the
kingdom level to be notified verbally if someone who knows them is available
to do so. It is often faster too.
Kwellend-Njal
David W. James
>Doesn't sound like a very good system to me. Names should be like any
>other aspect in our Society - a newby can either painstakingly
>research a completely documentable medieval name (although this may
>take some time, during which time she is known as "Doris" or
>something), or she can jump right in with an equally medieval-sounding
>(but not so documentable) name to go by.
RIGHT!!! If we can't do everything right, we shouldn't bother to try
to do anything right!!
Uh...
> For anyone else to demand otherwise smacks of "Authenticity
>Naziism", and ruins the game for everyone.
Wow, that's a new record on the Rialto for shortest time from
start of discussion to invoking nazi's. I'd congratulate you, but
it isn't something to be proud of.
>Stephen MacTerre
>Card-carrying member since 1990
This is supposed to impress us?
Kwellend-Njal
feeling more and more like a fossil
David W. James
>No conflict, just a lack of documentation! Hmmmm, I thought we
>were trying to re-create the middle ages, here.
Hehe. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Here we have someone who admits that he doesn't know if his name is
a recreation of the middle ages or not, upset because he was asked
to produce one, complaining because he claims he should be asked to???
Amazing.
M'lord, I can understand your anger at the conflict call against your
device. I had the same thing happen to me with my first device (except
it wasn't color, but that if you squinted a lot the charges looked
alike.) Unlike you I had a clue as to what a copyright is, and,
more importantly, I realize that we are all playing a game, and running
home to bring your parents back to threaten us if you don't like a rule
is pretty silly. Trying to use the U.S. Government as a sledgehammer
gains you nothing but scorn from me. Acting proud of it would only
gain you pity.
>I doubt that expectant
>parents in medieval europe had to jump through such hoops to name
>their children. Furthermore, if everyone had to document actual
>names, we'd all be named Adam or Eve!! SOMEBODY had to invent new
>names, and as long as the names followed practices of the time and
>region, there should be no problem, right? RIGHT?!?
No. Do some research into period naming practices in Scotland.
You'll see how wrong you are. Really. Not all the world or all of
time is the latter half of the 20th Century in North America, where
*anything* can be a name.
Simply put, you don't know what you are talking about, by your
own admission. Go, learn, and prove the heralds they're wrong. That
will impress me. Ignoring the rules that even you seem to want to
pay lip service to does not.
>Stephen MacTerre
>"Vert, two chevronels braced, a bordure argent"
Not a bad design. What did it conflict with?
Kwellend-Njal
Josh Mittleman
St> Doesn't sound like a very good system to me. Names should be like any
St> other aspect in our Society - a newby can either painstakingly research
St> a completely documentable medieval name (although this may take some
St> time, during which time she is known as "Doris" or something), or she
St> can jump right in with an equally medieval-sounding (but not so
St> documentable) name to go by.
KwN> RIGHT!!! If we can't do everything right, we shouldn't bother to try
KwN> to do anything right!!
Kwellend-Njal, I think you mis-took his point. I don't think Stephen meant
to say that no one should try to have an authentic medieval name or even
that we should stop encouraging everyone to have an authentic medieval
name; rather, I believe his point was that not everyone cares about having
an authentic medieval name. Some people are, and they will start off with
name research and choose good names off the top. Some people are not, but
will get good advice and education which will encourage and enable them to
choose authentic names even though they aren't really interested in that
aspect of our re-creations. A lot of people are not interested and don't
get that kind of assistance, so they pick names that sound right to them;
with luck, they will learn better later and will learn that getting lots of
small details right is the basis of a "medieval atmosphere", and they'll
change to more authentic names to help build that atmosphere.
You could replace "names" by "shoes" or "hats" or "tent stakes" in the
foregoing paragraph, and it would remain correct. That, I think, is the
essence of Stephen's point. Last week, Tangwystyl made the good point that
people are often loath the change their names once they are established;
that's a good reason to expend extra resources helping newcomers to choose
good names at the outset. When it works, the name registration system is
one tool which can provide that kind of help. The real question is whether
it is the most effective use of our official resources.
Arval.
none
--
In Caid the Kingdom Herald (Crescent) will check the blazon and
emblazon before attaching his seal. Scrolls have been turned back
for this kind of problem (real pretty ones). I think someone
posted not too long ago that his scroll was held until he changed
the spelling in his name.
Astridhr Selr Leifsdottir
E. Howard-Wroth
...uunet!astrid!astridhr Shire of Heatherwyne
astrid!astr...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
70327...@compuserve.com
none
>> ...A scroll can bear any arms that the scribe or recipient want to
>>emblazon, registered or not.
>
>Not in Atlantia, and probably not in the East. (Will someone in the know
>please correct me if I'm wrong; Brigantia, Treblerose, whichever reads
>this and whoever you may be at the time... aren't office changeovers
>wonderful... oh stop the evil chuckling already Fridrikr....)
>
>A scroll is not a scroll until the Principal Herald attests to the
>registration of the name (and armory if there is any) on it. This
>also serves as a doublecheck to make sure TRM didn't get the name
>wrong, which might otherwise have some weird side effects.
Well, I think you mean a scroll is not an official award scroll
unless validated by the Principal Herald;
just how is the Principal Herald supposed to stop me from commissioning
a piece of parchment with an unregistered set of arms on it and
hanging the result on my wall?
The *value* of it is, of course, something else. But in some
circumstances the idea makes sense: say I am creating a formal
"thank you" to someone else. It seems to me appropriate to
include my arms on it, and rather beside the point if the
PH signs the result. The registration or lack thereof is
irrelevant.
> Until
>the PH signs off on it, you have a "promissory," and any spaces
>for armory on a promissory are supposed to be left *blank.*
While I'm sure it's unintended, you've created an impossible
situation -- I'm supposed to leave the spot for the armory blank
until the PH signs off on it being correct?
>
>How much of this is written into Kingdom Law and how much is just
>strong custom probably varies between kingdoms.
>
>Evan da Collaureo, whose boss (Triton) just went through all this
>with the Crown and the Signet....
>dmontuor%telene...@uunet.uu.net
Not really in that much disagreement with you, but in a disputatious
mood (and too tired to dispute a real issue, which is why I picked
a convenient strawman in your brief statement)
Stephen Whitis
>foregoing paragraph, and it would remain correct. That, I think, is the
>essence of Stephen's point. Last week, Tangwystyl made the good point
>that
Stephen (and you) are ignoring that it takes time money and effort
to be authentic with physical things. Not the case with names.
Pick up a bible, or any history book (and how many of us don't have
access to either?) and pick a name. Or just go with John - it was
quite popular for thousands of years. Getting a documentable name
doesn't take any money, and little time.
With no guidance, and little thought, I picked "Stephen of the
Grove" at the first event I attended. I wasn't set on it by any
means, but later I checked around, found that it was just fine, and
went with it. No big deal.
Its only a big deal from people who want inauthentic names
regardless, even after they know they are not authentic.
How many of us would have nicer garb if we had time/money/skill to
do so? Most of us. But the time/money/skill slow down that
process. With a name, you can get 100% authentic for little
effort, and no money.
Anyone arguing "I don't want to" and comparing it with physical
items such as clothing isn't paying attention.
I'm probably a bit more bull-headed about this right now than I
might would be normally. Stephen's "buy a clue" post hit me wrong.
Stephen of the Grove
Steppes, Ansteorra
Stephen...@lunatic.com
---
. MegaMail 2.10 #0:Celibacy is not an inherited characteristic.
----
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Lunatic Fringe BBS * 214-235-5288 * 3 nodes * Richardson, TX*
UseNet,ILink,RIME,FIDO,Annex,Intelec,LuciferNet,PlanoNet,and more!
Free 30 Day Trial Subscription * Upload/Download on First Call!!
Josh Mittleman
> Stephen (and you) are ignoring that it takes time money and effort to be
> authentic with physical things. Not the case with names. ... Getting a
> documentable name doesn't take any money, and little time. ... Its only
> a big deal from people who want inauthentic names regardless, even after
> they know they are not authentic. ... Anyone arguing "I don't want to"
> and comparing it with physical items such as clothing isn't paying
> attention.
You have a good point, but I think you are taking it too far. You are
right that a name is the easiest piece of our re-creation to make
absolutely authentic. I personally agree with your opinion that anyone who
can't be bothered to choose and use an authentic name has missed the point
of what we're trying to do in the Society. I believe that a good
educational campaign would convince nearly all our newcomers to choose
authentic names. I believe that all Societyfolk should encourage newcomers
to choose authentic names and encourage each other to improve their names.
And I think your argument is one they should use: It's so easy and it makes
the game just a little bit better for everyone.
But that was not really the point we were debating. The question is not
whether people ought to choose authentic names, but whether a corporate
office should use its official power to coerce people into choosing
authentic name whether they want to or not, and in particular whether it
should attempt to block another unrelated re-creative effort (using armory)
as a coersive effort to improve the quality of Society names. I don't
object to minimum standards of authenticity as a general principle, but
that's not the game the Society has choosen to play.
There is no doubt that we need to find better ways to help and encourage
newcomers to choose good names, but I think it is equally evident that
holding their armory hostage is a dismal failure.
Stephen Whitis
>There is no doubt that we need to find better ways to help and encourage
>newcomers to choose good names, but I think it is equally evident that
>holding their armory hostage is a dismal failure.
Names and armoury are different. I don't see any problem with the
current method of registering names, other than the mundane name
loophole, which I think should be removed. Anyone who can document
a name, or who invents a name and can document the naming style,
can register it. Sounds like its based on authenticity to me...
I agree with you that the rules for armoury have a number of
problems. The discussion, however, wasn't about armoury, but about
names.
The same gentle (Stephen) complained about both names and armoury.
In the case of names, he's unwilling to pick a documentable last
name. In the case of armoury, he decided that since it wouldn't
pass (CoH) that he would copyright it, and that it would then be
ok. I think he's completely missed the point.
Stephen of the Grove
Steppes, Ansteorra
Stephen...@lunatic.com
---
. MegaMail 2.10 #0:Will write mailrun scripts for food.
----
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Lunatic Fringe BBS * 214-235-5288 * 3 nodes * Richardson, TX*
UseNet,ILink,RIME,FIDO,Intelec,LuciferNet,PlanoNet,U'NI-net and more!
Josh Mittleman
me> There is no doubt that we need to find better ways to help and
me> encourage newcomers to choose good names, but I think it is equally
me> evident that holding their armory hostage is a dismal failure.
St> Names and armoury are different. I don't see any problem with the
St> current method of registering names, other than the mundane name
St> loophole, which I think should be removed. Anyone who can document a
St> name, or who invents a name and can document the naming style, can
St> register it. Sounds like its based on authenticity to me...
St> I agree with you that the rules for armoury have a number of
St> problems. The discussion, however, wasn't about armoury, but about
St> names.
Perhaps we read a different sub-set of the postings, Stephen. I recall
discussion focussed on the College of Arms requiring an authentic,
registered name in order to register armory. That linkage ties the two
topics together in a way to which I object.
Considering names on their own, I essentially agree with you that everyone
ought to pick a historically-correct name; if for no other reasons, then
because it is trivially easy and it is a small courtesy to the rest of the
Society to make that minimal effort to enhance the medieval atmosphere.
On the other hand, I do not see any benefit in trying to force people to
choose authentic names, which is what the College of Arms does by requiring
name registration as a pre-requisite for armorial registration. If someone
simply isn't interested in having an authentic name, the Society can still
benefit from his interest in other forms of re-creation.
Arval.
Mark B. Wroth
>>You could replace "names" by "shoes" or "hats" or "tent stakes" in the
>>foregoing paragraph, and it would remain correct. That, I think, is the
>>essence of Stephen's point. Last week, Tangwystyl made the good point
>>that
>
>Stephen (and you) are ignoring that it takes time money and effort
>to be authentic with physical things. Not the case with names.
>Pick up a bible, or any history book (and how many of us don't have
>access to either?) and pick a name. Or just go with John - it was
>quite popular for thousands of years. Getting a documentable name
>doesn't take any money, and little time.
While you may be correct about picking "an" authentic name, I must
disagree that picking an appropriate name requires no money
and little time.
In particular, if you want to chose a name that is appropriate to
a specific culture, especially one that is not common in the SCA,
you can expect to spend quite a bit of time trying to discover
an appropriate name and then document it to the satisfaction of
the College.
The problem becomes acute if you have convinced yourself that
a particular name is authentic for your culture, but have difficulty
convincing the College that this is true.
Now, I'm not about to claim that in all such cases the submittor
is correct and the College is wrong. But I will assert that the
situation is not one which will result in the exercise taking
little time.
Money? Probably not much---copying fees, inter-library loan,
potentially buying some sources. But not free, either.
>
>With no guidance, and little thought, I picked "Stephen of the
>Grove" at the first event I attended. I wasn't set on it by any
>means, but later I checked around, found that it was just fine, and
>went with it. No big deal.
I'm glad you had a good experience with your name.
>Its only a big deal from people who want inauthentic names
>regardless, even after they know they are not authentic.
There is a third class. People who have had their names returned,
but have not been presented evidence that their belief that their
name is authentic is incorrect.
I hold no brief for someone who "knows" their name is inauthentic
and wants it anyway. But not everyone who disagrees with the
College over names is in that situation.
Stephen Whitis
>choose authentic names, which is what the College of Arms does by
>requiring name registration as a pre-requisite for armorial registration.
>If someone simply isn't interested in having an authentic name, the
>Society can still benefit from his interest in other forms of re-creation.
The CoH does not, however, require a person to have a registered
name in order to register armoury. They do require that you have
submitted a name, but if it didn't pass, they will still pass the
armoury.
I do see your point, and I agree with you to an extent. But I
don't see anything wrong at all with giving people encouragement
towards being authentic. And as I've said before, I think that
authentic names are incredibly easy to come by.
I started putting together another attempt to explain my
"conceptual authenticity" idea... I'll have to finish it up and
post it. This is directly related.
Stephen of the Grove
Steppes, Ansteorra
Stephen...@lunatic.com
---
. MegaMail 2.10 #0:Steal all you want... We'll make more!
Josh Mittleman
> The CoH does not, however, require a person to have a registered name in
> order to register armoury. They do require that you have submitted a
> name, but if it didn't pass, they will still pass the armoury.
Not accurate. The Laurel Sovereign of Arms can register the armory under a
holding name, but only if it gets to him. The kingdom heralds cannot pass
armory to Laurel under a holding name; if they feel that they must return
the name, then they cannot pass the armory. So, a more accurate statement
would be that the armory can get registered if the name is sufficiently
registerable to satisfy the kingdom heralds.
craig thomson
[Deletia...]
: The same gentle (Stephen) complained about both names and armoury.
: In the case of names, he's unwilling to pick a documentable last
: name. In the case of armoury, he decided that since it wouldn't
: pass (CoH) that he would copyright it, and that it would then be
: ok. I think he's completely missed the point.
: Stephen of the Grove
: Steppes, Ansteorra
I wish you would get your story straight! *ahem* "In the case
of names", I did indeed document the naming practices and construction
of names relevant to my persona. Although I provided copies of both
the first and last parts of my chosen name, the CoH decided that since
I didn't provide an actual referenced copy of my name, then it was
"insufficient" documentation! Sounds like a crock to me....
As to the armory, copyright or no, the CoA has no authority to
regulate what I display on my shield, or anyone else's. And since the
CoA has no legal authority, what do you tell Mistress So-and-So (oops!
I didn't document that name), an SCA veteran of 20 years, when a
corporation decides to adopt HER device as its new trademark? By your
own admission, she cannot use mundane armory: now what?! And if you
grandfather her "right" to bear those same arms, and said corporation
sues for trademark infringement, will you, or the SCA, bear her legal
costs? The CoA may even be named in the suit!
The fact of the matter is, the CoA cannot protect ANYTHING
submitted to it, so it therefore has no business trying to regulate
ANYTHING! No, technically, it cannot "regulate", but that doesn't
stop certain "armory nazis" from saying "You can't use that!"
I don't need a cluster of bureaucrats to tell me what is or is
not period, especially when I have the docs sitting in front of me!
The only "point" I have missed is that of the Heraldic Spear which has
come down out of the ether to smite me for speaking out against a
useless institution.
Stephen MacTerre
David Mann
>There is a third class. People who have had their names returned,
>but have not been presented evidence that their belief that their
>name is authentic is incorrect.
>
>I hold no brief for someone who "knows" their name is inauthentic
>and wants it anyway. But not everyone who disagrees with the
>College over names is in that situation.
rejected on the grounds that my name did not match known Welsh
naming patterns - no details given. But neither of my personas
are Welsh - they're Brythons. Ancesters of the Welsh we are, but
the language and naming patterns did change (note my primary
persona's name is not Emrys ap Cador, as it would have been for
a Welshman - ap meant something different in my time).
Now, I have a choice: track down the rejection reason (at minimum
one letter and a couple of months wait), before I can even say "OK -
you're right" or "I disagree because..."; ignore the college and
use the name (for a secondary persona, its such a big deal?); not
use the name based on an inadequate (and quite possibly non-applicaple)
explaination. I'm undecided between the first two, at the moment.
Emrys Cador .or.
Bron du Yr Cygfron (pending)
P.S. Its a good thing that Emrys and Bron have never been at the
same event - they're mortal enemies. Long story. But what do
you expect from a silly Celt?
Heather Rose Jones
: Ancedotal case of the third class: myself (secondary name). I was
: rejected on the grounds that my name did not match known Welsh
: naming patterns - no details given. But neither of my personas
: are Welsh - they're Brythons. Ancesters of the Welsh we are, but
: the language and naming patterns did change
Yes, they certainly did. But it was quite a reasonable assumption that
the name was intended to be Welsh rather than British (Brythonic, pick
your terminology, the experts differ) based on the use of modern Welsh
spellings and the lack of inflectional suffixes on the elements.
: (note my primary
: persona's name is not Emrys ap Cador, as it would have been for
: a Welshman - ap meant something different in my time).
Again, if "Emrys Cador" is intended to be pre-Welsh British, that isn't
in the slightest apparent from the appearance. In British language,
"Emrys" would have appeared in its original Lating form of "Ambrosius"
and "Cador" would also be different although it's hard to suggest a
specific form without knowing what you want it to be/mean. In other
words, don't blame people for assuming that your names are late-period
Welsh if that's the form of the language you're using.
: Now, I have a choice: track down the rejection reason (at minimum
: one letter and a couple of months wait)
It's a lot easier in this case. Ask me. I've done a bit of study on the
subject of British and Welsh names, and my commentary was probably a
contributing factor in the return of the name (although withough knowing
the dates involved, I'm having trouble finding it in my files).
:, before I can even say "OK -
: you're right" or "I disagree because..."; ignore the college and
: use the name (for a secondary persona, its such a big deal?);
But presumably whether the College likes it or not isn't the main point;
getting a name that is "right" for your chosen time and place _is_. (At
least it sounds like it is from your comments.) So simply ignoring the
college will not serve your purpose if they (we) have valid points to
make about the name as currently constructed. It's unfortunate that the
sheer volume of submissions handled makes it difficult for everyone to
get individual attention sometimes.
: Emrys Cador .or.
: Bron du Yr Cygfron (pending)
So here's my best analysis of a British name that best resembles what
you're currently using (for your secondary name, that is). I'm assuming
that by "Bron" you mean the given name that is identical to the word for
"crow, raven" (normally found as "Bran" -- "bron" means "breast" and I
have not found it used alone as a name). The earliest example I've found
of "bran" as a name element is in the early 6th century genitive
"Rialobrani" (Jackson "Language and History in Early Britain" p.457),
which strongly suggests -- although it does not guarantee -- a nominative
form of "Branos" for the element in question. (The waters are muddied
slightly by the fact that the noun "bran" is feminine.)
"Du" looks like it's intended to be a descriptive nickname: "black". (It
was a very popular one in Welsh in the medieval and renaissance eras, so
I see no reason to suppose that it wasn't also in earlier times.) In this
case, we are on much firmer ground, for Jackson (LHEB p.275) suggests
*dubo- or *dubu- as the British form. The ending would agree with the
given name as to gender. The most common masculine nominative suffix is
"-s", so in the absense of further information that's the way I'd bet. So
we end up with "Dubos" or "Dubus".
The last part, I believe it is a safe assumption, is intended to be a
second nickname meaning "the raven". (The modern Welsh would correctly be
"y gigfran" -- the definite article takes a different shape before
consonants and, "cigfran" being feminine, it lenites after the definite
article.) The word is a compound of "cig" (meat, flesh) and "bran" (crow,
raven -- as above). The stem of the first word in British would be "cic-.
I'm in the dark as to the composition vowel in this case. The cognates in
Irish and other languages point to something other than the standard
masculine o-stem declension, but don't help much. Let's call it "cicV-"
for now (V = unspecifiec vowel). In this case, since "cigfran" is being
used as the ordinary word, rather than being turned into a proper name,
it will stay in the feminine gender (even though being applied to a man,
it's grammatical gender -- nothing personal). Information on British
feminine declensions is a bit elusive, but following Irish cognates the
a-stem would be the standard, and the few examples I _can_ find of
British feminine nouns are listed with an "-a" nominative. So we've
worked up to the compound "cicVbrana". For the definite article, my best
interpretation of the discussion in Lewis & Pedersen ('A Concise
Comparative Celtic Grammar" p.218) is that the feminine nominative for
British would have been "in" (causing mutation in the following word at
least in later British, but this would not be reflected in the spelling).
I've heard some other theories tossed around by Celticists, but let's
stick to the published theory for now. So we've worked up to "in
CicVbrana" - and I'm inclined to fill the vowel in with an "o" for now,
subject to correction.
Now, I also note that in Old Irish, "bran" (cognate with the Welsh word)
is a masculine o-stem noun, so it is also possible that there was a shift
in gender in the Brythonic languages and that we should instead
reconstruct "ir Cicobranos" (again, the article is based on the arguments
of Lewis & Pedersen).
At least in Old Welsh and Medieval Welsh, it would be most usual for an
"animal-nickname" of this sort to appear with _no_ definite article if
the person were being personally identified with the creature (i.e., were
being considered to _be_ the creature). The use of the definite article
tends instead to mark a genitive phrase (i.e., "_of_ the raven"). In
British, this would also affect inflections and we'd get something like
"in Cicobrani" if we're taking "raven" to be masculine. If we're taking
"raven" to be feminine then it gets even more tenuous. The definite
article _might_ be something like the Old Irish cognate "inna". The noun
suffix will _probably_ have a high front vowel in it (since genitive
singulars and nominative plurals tend to have similar forms in Celtic
languages, and the plural -- brein -- shows the effects of a lost high
vowel in the suffix. It might have been "brani" or "brania" or something
else entirely. (Ask me again next summer after I've had the class in
Comparative Celtic.) But since my best guess is that you're aiming at a
nickname implying you _are_ the creature in question, we probably don't
have to worry about it. But in that case, I would definitely tend to
extrapolate back from later practice and drop the definite article. (And
not all that much later -- there are 6th century examples of names with
bynames that we, in English would tend to phrase as "X the Y" that are
found in late British as "X Y". Don't get misled by English syntax.)
So let's put it all together:
Branos Dubos Cicobranos
or possibly
Branos Dubus Cicobranos
or possibly
Branos Dubos Cicobrana
etc.
Double nicknames tend to be rare -- especially if they are both
descriptive rather than one being national or occupational -- but not
entirely unheard of in Old and Medieval Welsh. What seems a bit odd from
the point of view of meaning is that the name "translates" to "Black
Raven the Raven", which seems just a trifle on the redundant side. On the
other hand, Branos is a proper name, and Dubos would most likely refer to
hair color or complexion, neither of which would preclude a nickname of
"raven". I just suspect that the meaning of the proper name Branos would
be accessible enough to compatriots that if they wanted to nickname you
"raven" they would feel the need to do more than use your first name,
perhaps with a wink and a nudge.
Does that help any?
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
IVA...@delphi.com
Quoting stephen.whitis from a message in rec.org.sca
> The CoH does not, however, require a person to have a registered
> name in order to register armoury. They do require that you have
> submitted a name, but if it didn't pass, they will still pass the
> armoury.
Not necessarily. If the given name is acceptable, but the byname is not, they
will give you a holding name based on your given name submission and home
branch, and pass the armoury. If, however, they have a problem with the
given name, they will bounce the whole package, though holding the armoury
for an acceptable name. In my case, they then forgot to reassemble the
package, so my name passed a month or two before my arms which had been
acceptable to begin with.
I am not the only person I know whose arms were held up for an acceptable
given name.
Carolyn Boselli IVANOR Host of CF35 SCAdians on Delphi
If you're not new at something, you're not growing
Feudalism: It's your Count that votes.
`[1;34;40mRainbow V 1.05 for Delphi - Registered