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

[aliskye.livejournal.com]

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.

[doll-paparazzi.livejournal.com]

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.

[aliskye.livejournal.com]

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.

[doll-paparazzi.livejournal.com]

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.

[aliskye.livejournal.com]

I don't get out much either. :)

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