[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Badge - Fieldless) |Next Page (Beacon)]
For many years now, we've permitted couples to register household badges jointly, under both their names. One member of the couple was designated the main badge-holder, and the badge's blazon appeared under his/her name in the Armorial; but the badge was cross-referenced under the name of the couple's other half. (See, for instance, Rule AP5 of the 1986 Rules for Submission.)
Two such joint household badges were considered at the July meeting. It was noted in the commentary that the current Rules (1990 vintage) don't allow for joint registration: a household name and badge are specifically "retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative." I don't think this was deliberate, but was simply an oversight during the Rules revision; certainly, we've registered joint badges since then (e.g., the badge jointly registered to Jehan le Batarde and Ygraine of Preston, on the LoAR of Feb 92, p.8).
I'd like to continue joint registration of household names and badges. My policy shall be that the first name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O. Moreover, to ensure that this confusion doesn't arise again, I propose to change the Section in the Administrative Handbook, Registerable Items: B.3, Household Names, to read:
"By convention, this designation is applied to the name of a group other than a Society branch or order, such as a household, guild, group fighting unit, etc. Such names may be registered either by an individual or by a Society branch, and armory may be associated with such names. In the case of a household registered by an individual, records dealing with the group's name or armory will be retained under the Primary Society Name of the group's designated representative; when the household is jointly registered by a couple, a cross-reference shall also be listed under the Primary Society Name of the other member of the couple."
The rest of the paragraph shall remain unchanged; and paragraphs D.3 and E.1 of the same Section shall be amended to refer to paragraph B.3, to include joint registration of fielded and fieldless badges as well as names. (3 August, 1992 Cover Letter (July, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
While the current Rules and Administrative Guidelines do not explicitly permit a household to have multiple badges, neither do they explicitly prohibit it. After some thought, I've decided there's no reason a household shouldn't have as many badges as the Rules allow. Certainly, houses in period could have more than one badge --- a Scots clan, for instance, could have a crest-badge and a plant-badge. Our only restriction is that one person be the primary owner for all the household's badges --- which effectively limits the number of badges per household. (Yseult de Cherbourg, September, 1992, pg. 28)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Badge - Fieldless) |Top of Page |Next Page (Beacon)]
The household name and badge were twice submitted on the LOI: once under [the submitter's] name, and once under the name of [another submitter]. Per our current policy on joint badge registration (LoAR cover letter of 3 Aug 92), one of these gentles must be designated the primary badge-holder. [Name and badge attached to other name and returned for unrelated reasons]. (Ursus Imminere (Jane Falada of Englewood), October, 1992, pg. 28)
There have recently been some questions about Society branches registering badges to generic names: e.g. a badge for the Stonemarche Scribes' Guild, or for the Keeper of the Regalia of the Principality of the Sun. How are such generic names protected? Why do we register them?
To my mind, these are not names, not in the same style as Order names, household names, heraldic titles, and the like. A better term might be "job-description:" a simple declaration of the intended use of the badge. As such, we haven't held these to the same standards of conflict as other group names: for instance, both Caid and An Tir have badges registered to the Office of the Lists, without any infringement. If every branch officer who may can register a badge, then no one Kingdom may claim sole use of the name of the office; otherwise, only the West could have a Constable. By extension, the same holds true for other branch functions: Baronial Guard, King's Champion, Brewers' Guild, etc. So long as the badge is associated with a purely functional name, it's neither checked for conflict during submission or protected from conflict afterwards.
The key is for the name to be unarguably generic. Lyondemere Baronial Guard is functional, generic, and thus not held to conflict standards. The Lyondemere Levy, a deliberately alliterative name, is not generic, and must meet the normal name submission standards; once registered, it is then protected equally with Order names. (Notice that there are no generic Order names.) Generic names may only be registered by SCA branches, for common branch functions; but such generic names need not be checked for conflict, any more than the names of officers. (28 March, 1993 Cover Letter (January, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Badge - Fieldless) |Top of Page |Next Page (Beacon)]
[A pheon inverted] Possible conflict was cited against the English Royal badge, (tinctureless) A broadarrow. Lord Lion's Blood has noted instances of the badge's use (e.g. the seal of the Royal Butlery, c.1330) where the broadarrow is inverted, and suggests that this is its defined orientation. Other (post-period) uses of the broadarrow show the charge in a variety of orientations: e.g., the clothing used by British prisoners until 1920 was marked with broadarrows --- essentially semy --- in random orientations. However, while the badge might be rotated in use, its default posture would be that of the charge itself, which would be point to base in English usage. (A close examination of the illustration of the Royal Butlery seal [Coat of Arms, July 56, p.93] suggests that it was printed upside down: the Latin inscription around the seal, which starts at its bottom, is depicted at the tope of the drawing.) Pending more definitive evidence, we will assume that the badge uses the charge in its default posture. Against this submission, we thus count a CD for fieldlessness (tincturelessness), and a CD for posture. (Eric Ward of Winchester, August, 1993, pg. 1)
There's nothing to prevent an Order from having more than one badge; the Order of the Garter has multiple badges, and so does the SCA's Order of the Rose. (Barony of Caerthe, October, 1993, pg. 18)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Badge - Fieldless) |Top of Page |Next Page (Beacon)]