cormac | Prompted by a conversation with Istvan at GWW

Entry tags:

heraldry,
sca

Prompted by a conversation with Istvan at GWW

I've been thinking lately about how complex Society heraldic designs seem to be, and why it's become that way. It seems that at first, Society heraldry was quite simple. Looking at the arms approved at the February 1970 meeting, we see things like "John of Griffin. Vert, a griffin rampant countournee Or." and "Eric Haroldsson Breakstone (then in utero). Gules, a golden fleece proper." Single color field, single charge. In May of that year, we see "Allendale of the Evergreen. Argent, a pine tree proper," "Charles of the J.A.C.s. Sable, a broken fasces Or," "Sean MacArailt. Sable, an increscent argent," "William of Sachalcross. Argent, a saltire gules between four annulets sable," and so forth. Great armory! Wonderfully period! Easily identifiable from across the field!

So what happened? As heralds started conflict checking against more and more mundane armory, it became more and more difficult to pass simple, "core-style" period armory. Heralds at the consultation tables began to develop work-arounds such as adding a peripheral charge (e.g. a bordure or a chief) to clear conflicts. Someone noticed that the more complex armory was getting passed, and someone else noticed that even more complex heraldry could be justified by citing Tudor styles, which were at times ridiculously complex. It became common to see four or more types of charge on a shield. The rule of thumb (total complexity count of 8) was developed to keep things from getting too complex, but still allowed for a great number of dreadful submissions to be passed.

A little bit of knowledge thus did a great deal of harm. Non-heralds, seeing the complex armory borne by their compatriots, designed their own heraldry assuming that such was an acceptable norm. They came to the tables with depictions of their entire life story on shields, and the heralds held their noses and passed them. Many new heralds accepted this complex style as well, and as the old generation took a backseat, the new generation actively encouraged awful designs. Now, it's "common knowledge" that you can't have a single charge on a plain field, because they're all taken by now. 2/3 of arms registered in the Society would never have been plausible before the Renaissance, but the submitters don't know this and the CoA don't seem to care.

I've tried to fight it with my own submitters, when I can, but I can't see much that I can do at this point, particularly when new research into the anomolies of period heraldry have revealed quarternary charges, banana crescents and other hindrances to identifiability across a field. And I've come to learn that if you tell someone in the SCA that something was done once, by accident, in period, it becomes the new big thing, everyone wants to do it, and all of a sudden we're wearing shoes on our hands because "it's the way it's always been done."

How do we turn this ship around?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not all newer heraldry is more complex than older. Mine (see icon) was registered a number of years after Mary's and hers is more detailed.

How to change the trend? I dunno. Retrain the heralds on period practice for different eras and locales so they can say, "I'm sorry a 13th century Spaniard wouldn't have had a semy of gold fleur de lis."

Just remember: Gyrony of twenty gules and sable, fibriated argent. Two concentric annulets counterchanged.

Oh, I'll be the first to admit that (see my device). That's entirely the point. Simple armory CAN be registered!

Just a few random ideas from a non-(book)herald (but aesthetically pleasing heraldry supporter):

I've always been a fan of "lead by example." Encourage submitters to make sure they can draw/embroider/easily explain their heraldry (you should have seen my first draft, oh god awful! Fortunately, I'm much better now. :D ).

Teach a class that points out disadvantages of cookie cutter heraldry (specifically form, design and construction). Maybe mix in a bit of history of SCA heraldry and where these ideas came from in the first place. Could also go into "heraldic anomalies and why they don't count." One of the things that people asked for in Collegium scheduling were more higher level classes. "Heraldry for Heralds: An in depth look at period practices in heraldry and how they apply to the SCA" would probably go over quite well.

Heraldic pentathlon entry! 1) As a silk banner 2) As a garment to be worn 3) On a piece of furnishing (badge) 4) As a decorative element on a sotelty)(sp?) 5) Something else...are there documented uses of heraldry in stories or songs? or just simply on a scroll. There's surely enough categories to choose from. :) A unified entry would be awesome, I'd love to see that myself!

The heraldry people see most often are on fighters shields at tournaments. Some of them have really nice heraldry, some do not. All you can really do is point out who the most recognizable people are. Those with simple, bright heraldry usually win. Those with a lot going on are harder to remember ("Who's that fighter guy with the castle and the boar and the quill and I think red, blue and either black or gold?" will always lose to "Who's the guy with the hanging sloth?").

I sort of feel like any old, unused heraldry should be released back to those that are active. Meaning, if you ain't a paying member, you don't own that heraldy anymore (you snooze, you loose). Give them two years maybe, or three, but some of these people haven't been around for ten or twenty plus years. Release the heraldry and then, you can clear the books and start encouraging people for simple heraldry again.

How many people would join the SCA just to keep their heraldry to themselves? Just think of all the revinue? You should get something (more than just a free newsletter and a $3 discount) for that $35 a year subscription, no?

I would tend to agree - if the person has not been a member for, say, 20 years, the device is automatically released back into the wild.

Also, if you have any previous devices, then PLEASE remember to release them if not in use. I actually went to a simpler device when I rejoined and wanted to leave my old persona behind. As a result, I ditched my old one and released it. People need to start doing the same.

I can't get a stupid Phoenix in my device because of people like this not releasing their devices. Someone from 1984 who isn't even active, has a device similiar to the one Master Bruce tried for me. It's so frustrating. :(

It's a good idea, and one that's been batted around more than once within the College of Arms. Unfortunately, the College is contractually obligated to protect all armory currently registered, until the owner of said armory (whether the registrants or their heirs) release it.

Has people thought about contacting everyone with heraldry with a postcard that isn't active and saying (or email people), "You aren't active. To remain active you have to be X"....

I mean... yeah, that would be time consuming and expensive, but in the long run, you could probably make more money to make up for it.

Or put it forward to the Board of Directors to pass it as a new law. To be an active member to save your heraldry, you have to pay for it. I don't understand personally why someone that hasn't played in the SCA in 20 years would expect the SCA to keep it. It's not really fair to the active members now.

They would expect we would keep it because they signed documents from us that said we would, and we are a society that values honor and chivalry.

Your phoenix issues aside (and let's talk about those; there's ALWAYS a way) registered armory isn't the problem here. The problem is breaking people of the belief that they need complex armory in the first place. If you want a solid background, a solid-colored phoenix, and nothing else, we can probably do that. If you want a phoenix on a tower between a lion holding a sword and three stars, we can do that too, but I'd rather you didn't, since it's poor period design.

No, I just want a phoenix in my armory. Both Su and Bruce tried altering the background to get it to pass without conflicting with the bazillion other people with phoenixeseseses. It's depressing that a simple thing like a phoenix, can't get approved. Tried it already twice and Bruce was suggested to me as the uber Herald that could get anything passed... he couldn't. And I love him to pieces (and still do).

;__; Sad.

While I agree with you that it seems foolish to keep all arms forever, I suspect a postcard campaign would be a big waste of time and money given that few people stay at one address for more than a few years.

I think the cost would be ridiculous, but perhaps an email champaign? That isn't too bad. Once you get an email list together, you can keep sending emails out at the push of a button.

And all that would need to happen is that anyone without an email, you would just have a statue of limitations i.e. if this person hasn't been in the SCA for over 10 years, then they aren't around.

You could send out a call on all the email lists with a list of people's names. Those people that are on the lists could look them over (hopefully barony's could help) and see if they know who the people are.

Was there ever a rule saying that the SCA would hold on to your heraldry forever even if you were no longer a paid and active member? Frankly, I think it's ridiculous if that was the case and would put in a new rule with a statue of limitations. There are too many people that don't pay dues and it just makes it harder on everyone when you have all these things out there.

I would think anyone that really cares about their heraldry would have keep renewing, you know what I mean?

Heq, I bet a lot of the names were from newcommers that tried out for a year or two and then dropped.

This has diverged a bit from Cormac's original post, but I agree with you in large part, that to keep your arms registered one should have to do something, whether it's maintain membership or be active or visit the "I wanna keep my arms" website once a year or something.

I've suggested in the past that there be a check box on the forms saying something along the lines of "If I become inactive in the SCA or die, I agree that my arms will be dropped from the rolls".

I know that the counter-argument to dropping arms is the "How dare they not protect the arms of early (important) members that are not around anymore."

I dunno.

OT... oops. Sorry.

I'm always of the idea of updating and changing things around. If people are making difficult arms (like his original post) there needs to be reasons for it. I know my own arms issues are because I am trying not to conflict with previously held arms (and one person that isn't active) and layering things on top to pass it through. That's why I suggested what I did.

My original arms went right through, but it was an odd unique thing I was asking for. Seafox and pipkins... and I think the heralds were discussing the term of pipkin (saying it was wrong)... which you know wasn't. ::shrugs::

I'm going off topic again, aren't I? ;__; Sorry. I don't get out much.

I don't get out much either. :)

I'm sure Cormac will forgive us for going astray. :)

Where does it say that the CoA is obligated to keep all registered arms forever?

Corpora VI.C.3.b:

b. Any item once registered shall remain registered unless the owner requests its release, and shall be accepted in the Society for the person for whom it was registered without regard to changes in the rules and standards applied to future submissions, or to the membership status of the owner.

(5 Dec 2006 revision, in case the indexing got changed at a later revision, but I just now pulled this off the sca.org web site.)

Edited 2008-10-16 22:30 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

But paying memberships have only recently been required to prove active membership. When I joined the SCA back when rocks were soft, paid memberships were only required by those who held office or were seated on a throne. You didn't have to be a paid member in order to attend events. It has only been in the past ten years or so that paid memberships started becoming manditory.

However, how can you define activity? I know a lot of people who aren't active in the SCA who still pay their memberships. And how do you know that Lord Joe Blow, whom you haven't seen in Caid for years, isn't playing in the East Kingdom? You just can't arbitrarily decide that just because someone hasn't been seen in years, so therefore you can place their arms back into the common pool. And then what happens with a person, for whatever reason, who takes a break for a year or five, comes back to find that someoneelse is now using their name and/or arms. That would cause a huge stink. And many peoples feelings would be greatly hurt. And then there are the people who have died. Do you want to force the families to give up their names and arms because they aren't using them any more? Imagine how the people of Califia would feel if the CoH gave someone else Baron Talanque's arms or name. This would be a huge mess and one that should not be touched.

10 years is plenty of time. It wouldn't be like, if you took a year off then people would jump (I think I mentioned 3-5 someplace in my comments).

If you want to keep the arms, pay the dues. I define active for keeping arms as paying dues. Nothing more. Simple.

I wouldn't force anyone to give up anything. There is no reason to. But I would ask people if they want to keep the arms (if it is that important to them)to pay to keep it. Like a website domain, you pay a yearly fee to keep that name, why not do the same with heraldry?

Sorry Cormac for the divergence. I'm not trying to keep this conversation alive. Just trying to answer questions.

Not sure how to steer the boat, but I'd like a simpler design myself; I'd like to get it to one color and one metal ;)

Per bend sinister azure and purpure, a trident's head inverted Or

Wilhelm vF

The trend isn't universal, as witnessed by examples of "[field], a [charge]" submitted at Pennsic which are apparently clear of conflict. At least one of those examples had a plain field, too.

However, I do understand your concern. I just am not sure what to do about it... it appears to be reviving the 20-year-old Tadhg vs Greyraven debate. Thing is, if we're going to try to get the statistical distribution of SCA armory to match that of period armory (Tadhg's ideal), re-educating the populace seems to be the only solution that stands much chance of *working*... and it's going to take time, and a lot of effort, for little apparent return (thus lessening motivation) It would be worth it, but keeping folks on message is going to be ugly hard.

2/3 of arms registered in the Society would never have been plausible before the Renaissance, but the submitters don't know this and the CoA don't seem to care.

By the time an individual submission gets to the CoA, there's not a whole lot the CoA *can* do about it. On an individual submission basis we're pretty much required to be permissive as long as it's legal.

Aha! So there's how to buck the trend: change the law!

Require documentation on all armory like we do on names. If people have to document the anomolies every time they want to get something other than, say, "[tincture], [number between 1 and 3] [charge(s)] [tincture]" they'll be more reluctant to go for the complicated armory, and it'll get them (or at least their heralds) into period roles, looking at period armory.

Am I correct in guessing that there are invisible <sarcasm> tags around your comment, or parts of it?

Honestly, while I am the Opener of Cans of Worms for the Atlantian CoH (and some might say for a wider cross-section of Atlantia than just the heralds), I'm not sure I want to touch that can of worms.

There are parts of the statement that are sarc.-tagged. But on the other hand, why not?

We currently require people to document the most common and attested of names, like George or Elizabeth. Why not hold armory to the same requirement? Force the Saxon or Norman submitter to write "this pattern of armory, a roundel on an animate charge between three inanimate charges and on a chief semy of flowers an animate charge, is found in the arms of Stinchcombe, recorded in the Stinchcombe Roll, 1593."

Edited 2008-10-16 21:46 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the scope of the period the SCA covers. It doesn't make sense to limit late personas to the same bag of tricks as early ones, but as you pointed out, people see detailed heraldry and want something like that for themselves. In addition, I think we're trying to do two things concurrently--give everyone a recognizable personal device, and make devices that are good heraldry for the field. Lastly, I think there's a lot of peer pressure to register a device even when it doesn't fit your persona, if for no other reason than you don't want someone using something you've had for years. For example, there's no way my persona would use heraldry as defined by the society, but I've often felt I should register something just to be on the safe side.

My opinion on how to solve this would not work, or at least would cause a lot of bad blood, but here it is: only people with AoAs should get to have a device. Yes, it's discriminatory, but it also rewards those who contribute to their local groups and have been recognized for it. It stops the flood of submissions to some extent, and if someone has a higher award AoAs can always be assumed to attach to them. Any device that is currently held by someone who does not have an AoA would automatically be released, as would any device registered to someone not active for some set amount of time, as

patgund suggested. That reduction wouldn't stop the trend towards complexity, but it might abate it a bit.

Another possibility is to allow complex heraldry, but expect some aspect of that complex heraldry, not the entire thing, to be expressed on the shield when on the battlefield. How often in illumnations do we see the King of England with a shield bearing the heraldry of all parts of his claimed dominions, and how often do we see just the three lions or?

I'd also like to see more family coat of arms where the family has been playing multi-generationally. I realize that kind of goes against our cultural desire for individuality, though.

The problem I see with limiting people to heraldy with AoA is that some people, like many of my good friends over the many years I've been around is... is well... some people don't get AoA's because people think they HAVE AoAs already. I just had a long talk with someone that was in the SCA 19 years and it took him 15 to get his AoA (Caid). Another very good friend of mine it took her 19 years (East) and I was the one that wrote the letter (from WAY over here in Caid to their Queen). All her friends were Laurels and Pels... and NONE of them could write a letter to give her a AoA? :(

And both were active in their Barony's and shires. Both did for years various service, and the one of 19 years, did massive day boards for fighters, washed dishes at feasts, brewed, taught brewing and was, as far as I understood it, was an all around den mother.

So, yeah. I wouldn't do that just because the way awards are given is hit and miss. If say people were a little more attentive with the letter writing, well then sure. I would agree with you.

:p

I don't have any ideas, but I will say that you were of immense help in developing mine. Not that I've gotten it officially approved or anything as of yet.

::hugs::

Not that you've even submitted it, to my knowledge. :P

Which was what I ment when I said that I haven't gotten it approved.

Compliance for advertisements is what I do currently (along with auditing). I feel your pain, I truly do. I don't post much about work because my boss is on my FL, as is the boyfriend of one of my co-workers. Otherwise, you'd be hearing some real horror stories.

I'm guessing you like mine. :) (even though the herald I submitted it to called it a one-eyed space octopus)

Indeed I do like your device. I'd like it better if it were emblazoned properly (that's a cartouche, Your Grace, not an eye) but it's good, simple armory. Yay you!

I have no idea what a cartouche is. But it's appearance is strictly an artistic choice on my part. It is an eye. :)

A cartouche is an oval standing on its end. It can spread the shape range from an egg to a pill. An eye is usually an oval or a pointed oval (football) on its side, and has internal detailing to show its "eyeness."

Got it. But the reason I am a stickler about it being an eye is because it *is* an eye. May not be shaped like one the way we perceive it, but the eye aspect (and it being blue specifically) is an integral part of the mysticism of the Hand of Fatima. I think I dislike the regular eye shape because of my favorite hand charm that I got a a belly dance event years n years ago, which has a huge round piece of lapis that takes up almost the entire palm. It's really pretty, and I'm sure you've seen it (actually, I had Edric wear it during the first Crown that he won for me), though you probably don't remember it. So, since I love that one so much, it has shaped my preference aesthetically. :)

(I know the grammar in that entire paragraph is hideous.)

Why can't I get one-eyed space octopi? Or is that octopusesesesesss. :3

I wanted a Kirin for my original ORIGINAL heraldry. The herald told me it was a monster and I couldn't. Where were you when I needed you. ::pouts::

Then the herald can't count. There are only 5 tentacles. {grin duck run}

I've managed to find out that my device hasn't passed, due to conflict, since there's someone in An Tir who has "flames Or" where I've my anchor Or and church bell Or. I'd like to have it officially returned so that I can resubmit with anchor argent and church bell argent..

But yeah it does seem to me that many years of devices means that a lot of the simpler ones are taken, not all, but most.. Meh.

I haven't been involved in heraldry for some years, but I thought that the Heralds dropped checking against mundane heraldry conflicts some time ago. IIRC, I thought that doing this was a move to simplify SCA devices, once again. The majority of my arms and badges were done 30 some years ago, but my latest badge is a simple charge and was passed a year ago. My arms are a combination of two popular charges and are unique. I have been told by several heralds that they would not have passed subsequently because they are not documentable. But I can still keep them because they were passed once a long time ago. Heck, my name would never be passed either because it is not documentable and goes against current rules. But I don't intend to change it.

I guess that I am not amongst the "common" as I didn't know that a single charge couldn't be passed, until your post. However, even 30 years ago, it was known that if you wanted a dragon or a lion or an eagle or some other popular charge, you would have to add additional charges to them in order to have one of those.

I don't disagree that 2/3rds of all arms registered in the SCA aren't plausibly period, but I do disagree that the CoH doesn't care. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the implausible arms were passed a long time ago and that they are now grandfathered. They cannot be changed unless the owner agrees to have them changed. Most of the owners don't care whether or not they are plausible or not. Over the many years the SCA has existed, the quality of our Heralds has consistantly improved. I would like to think that today's Heralds know more and care more about period heraldry than their predecessors did. Just as I know that the quality of research in the majority of the arts and sciences has improved. The things we did way back when rocks were soft cannot compare to what we are doing now.

The heralds did stop checking against mundane heraldry in 1994 (though for non-heralds, the word hasn't spread well; hence the belief that simple armory is no longer possible).

Hmm I was still being warned away from mundane conflicts by heralds in '98 so I guess the word hadn't spread well amongst heralds either. :)

I would submit my vote for relaxing conflicts with mundane heraldry rather than releasing older possibly unused devices. One think I like about the SCA is that it has developed its own history and releasing older devices I think could infringe on that. That being said more people should take the time to release heraldry that is no longer important to them.

Uh, Cormac, you just recently advised me against a conflict with mundane heraldry. In the past few months, actually. Malta, I believe.

I have a simple device, one metal charge on a solid color background. That's probably going to change soon, though - I'm bored with it.

However, it was easy to pass and in the not so distant past (I never bothered to register it, or my name, until a former member of my household got really bent about it).

I did advise you against a conflict with Malta. We still protect mundane armory considered important enough to protect (can't have the arms of England, for example) and Malta falls under that category.

Your ability to pass your device is exactly what I'm trying to impress upon my submitters. You CAN get simple armory. You CAN register a single charge on a field. You just have to be reasonably flexible with what you want.

I dont know...Mines pretty simple, really.

Yours is fantastic. I tend to be preaching to the choir with my friends list.

Well, I knw mie is unusually simple. Some of the arms fol;s ask me to reproce on pottery is an absolute nightmare. Especally when it needs to be small.

How about a visibility test? A herald with 20/20 vision should be able to distinguish all colors and elements on a standardized size coat of arms from a particular distance. If the expert can't see and describe it, it's out on charges of excess detail. That should cut back on people trying to get a profusion of crap on their arms. Send the design back with the admonishment that this is supposed to be a coat of arms, not an illuminated manuscript.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Prompted by a conversation with Istvan at GWW

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject