Prompted by a conversation with Istvan at GWW

[cormac]

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?

Comments

[matrygg.livejournal.com]

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.

[doll-paparazzi.livejournal.com]

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.