[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Next Page (Rainbow)]
[Sean O'Connor] This conflicts with John O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, who has gained national attention with his anti-abortion opinions. He is listed in general referernces ( Encyclopedia Americana, 1992 ed., vol.20, p.628), so he's important enough to protect. (See also the LoAR of Nov 88, where another submission was returned for the same conflict.) (Sean O'Connor, August, 1992, pg. 23)
[Porsche Audi] This infringes on the Porsche-Audi division of Volkswagen of America, a registered corporation. Laurel took the most direct method of discovering this: he visited a local Porsche-Audi dealership. The conjunction of the names is distinctive and famous enough to warrant protection. [see also "Style -- Modern," pg. 50] (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)
[House von Neunkirchen] This conflicts with the city of Neunkirchen, in the Saar region between France and Germany. By our standards, the city is important enough to protect: it's a center for the European iron industry, and appears in at least two general references ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.III, p.2919; 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol.XIX, p.426). The fact that it is a "generically formed name" does not detract from its importance: Iceland is a generically formed name, too. Nor does the fact that several other towns share the same name reduce the importance of this one. Neunkirchen meets the criteria for protection under the Administrative Guidelines; this must therefore be returned. (Astrid Radulfsdottir, August, 1992, pg. 30)
The badges of British ships are registered with the English College of Arms, so this is "real" armory, deserving protection under our current standards. (Marcus il Volpe and Regenwulf Osbern of Nympsfield, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[Juan Sanchez Ramirez] The name infringes on that of Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez, the immortal played by Sean Connery in the film Highlander and its sequel. (The name is unlikely to soon fade into obscurity, for two reasons. First, the Highlander films have spawned a TV series, keeping the name in the public eye for some time to come. Second, the character is played by Sean Connery, which evidently makes the character ipso facto memorable; there are people [like some of my female friends] who would drive a hundred miles to hear Sean Connery read the telephone directory.) (Juan Sanchez Ramirez, September, 1992, pg. 45)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
[Iron Horde of Cathanar] As in the case of the Company of the Checquered Shield of Western Seas (LoAR of 19 Jan 91), the use of the SCA branch name implies this is an official group of the Barony of Cathanar. As the submitter doesn't represent Cathanar, he may not style his household in a way that suggests official sanction. (If he has official sanction from Cathanar, the name should be registered to Cathanar.)
Normally, we'd delete the problematic part of the name, and register this as simply the Iron Horde, but that would then introduce conflicts. Specifically, it would conflict with the Iron Guard, a Rumanian fascist organization founded in 1924. Paramilitary and strongly anti-Semite, it played a major role in Rumanian history prior to and during World War II (including the assassination of one Premier and the installation of another). Since it's cited in several general references ( The New Century Cyclopedia of Names, vol.II, p.2135; 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.7, p.388), the Iron Guard is important enough to protect. (And in any case, I doubt the submitter would like a household name so close to a group whose atrocities offended even the Nazi Gestapo.) (Mengü of Cathanar, September, 1992, pg. 46)
[Maison des Animaux] The name is intrusively modern, strongly evoking the film Animal House (of which the name is an exact translation). Translation into another tongue can bring a name clear, per Rule V.4.b --- but only if the pronunciation is significantly altered. The difference between Animal and Animaux is too small to be considered significant; and the household designator (House, Maison) is transparent, and counts for no difference. As for the "fame" of the conflict, if a sizable fraction of the populace (of which the College of Arms may be considered a representative sample) recognizes Animal House as a movie title, it's probably necessary to protect it from conflict --- not so much for its own sake, as to keep the modern movie reference from intruding on our medieval re-creation. (Jacqueline de Lyons, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Canton of Chuzan] There was some discussion as to whether this conflicts with Chuzan, the old name of central Okinawa (where the canton is located). The 1986 edition of the Rules for Submission permitted branch names to "use an old in-period name for the territory actually encompassed in the mundane world by that branch", so long as the old name wasn't in modern use (NR18.c). Thus, for instance, a Society branch along the Atlantic Canadian coast could call itself Vinland under the old Rules.
The current Rules do not contain that provision for obsolete placenames to be used by Society branches. I asked Mistress Alisoun, former Laurel Queen of Arms, and she told me the omission was deliberate. The 1986 Rules protected all mundane placenames, no matter how unimportant or obscure; a special dispensation for SCA branches was sometimes needed. The current Rules protect only famous or important placenames. Thus, if the obsolete name for a territory currently occupied by a Society branch is important or famous, it's protected against conflict by anyone (including the SCA branch); if the obsolete name is unimportant, there's no conflict in the first place, and any branch could use the name [name returned for a different conflict]. (Canton of Chuzan, September, 1992, pg. 53)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
The movie Castle Keep, produced in the 60s, does not appear to have been important enough to protect. (Shire of Castle Keep, December, 1992, pg. 7)
Some of the conflict calls this month (e.g. Order of the Black Widows, Order of the Opus) were against fictional characters in our popular culture --- specifically, comic strip characters. I dislike having to call conflict against such ephemeral characters; on the other hand, if someone submitted the name Clark Kent, I'd almost certainly return it for conflict. On what basis, then, should we judge such conflicts?
There are two categories in the List of Protected Items (Administrative Guidelines, pp.2-3) that would cover such conflict calls: Category D, Famous Characters in Literature, and Category H, Trademarked Items. Most comic book characters' names are copyrighted these days, as a matter of course, and many are trademarked as well: Marvel and DC are said to be particularly trademark-happy. Our problem lies in the fact that most superhero names are of exactly the same nature as many SCA Order and household names: an epithet or descriptive, taken as a personal noun. Storm, Valor, Swordsman, Ice, Guardian, Phoenix are typical superhero names -- and some of them, as you see, are direct conflicts with registered SCA names. (Heck, Marvel even managed to copyright Meggan, a common given name!)
If I understand rightly, the purpose of trademarks is to keep competitors in a field from manipulating or benefitting from one another's reputations. Trademarks don't infringe when the intended use of the products is so different as to make the chance of confusion negligible. Thus the Excel (the car from Hyundai) doesn't infringe on Excel (the software from Microsoft). The Apple Music Company had no objection to Apple Computers using their name - - until the latter started manufacturing music-making Macs.
If that's the case, then we only need to worry about infringing on copyrights or trademarks when the intended use of the SCA-registered item is too close to the use of the trademarked item. In practice, I suppose this means fighting groups can't call themselves the West Kingdom Avengers or the Justice League of Atlantia -- but I don't see that the Shire of the Storm really infringes on the superheroine Storm.
That leaves protection as Famous Literary Characters, and this is more subjective. I don't want to get into a debate as to whether comics are Literature-with-a-capital-L; it's the fame of the characters, not the quality of their scripting, that concerns us. Infringement requires the character's name to be well-known; unknown names, by definition, won't be recognized as comic book characters. (The issue is related, in a way, to that of intrusive modernity: if people recognize a name as a comic strip character, they automatically know it's not medieval.) Most people haven't heard of most comic book characters; and even well-known superhero names (Captain America, Wonder Woman, Batman, Spiderman) are usually returnable for non-period style as well.
There are thus few comic characters that need to be protected: the aforementioned Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne possibly Mary Worth, Bart Simpson, Charlie Brown, perhaps a handful of others. Those conflicts are, unfortunately, valid -- but they will, in all cases, depend on whether the character's name has seeped into the public consciousness. We can't depend on finding these items in general references, our usual standard for importance. I'll try to be as objective as I can, but it'll still boil down in most cases to polling Yeomen on the Road to see who's heard of the name. (5 December, 1992 Cover Letter (October, 1992 LoAR), pg. 2)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
[House Battleaxe] Possible conflict was cited against the HMS Battleaxe. I intend to offer warships the same protection as military units: if they're important enough to be cited in general references (such as encyclopedias), then they will be protected. The Battleaxe does not appear in the references I searched; we needn't protect it. (Michaela de Romeny, October, 1992, pg. 15)
While Howel Dda, ruler of Wales (d.950), is important enough to protect from conflict, evidently his son Owain is not: I couldn't find him mentioned in any of several general references, not even in the entries for his father. (Owain ap Howell, October, 1992, pg. 15)
[Isabella du Dauphiné]The Dauphiné is a region in SE France, which between 1378 and 1830 was nominally ruled by the Dauphin, the heir to the throne of France. Isabella of Bavaria was the wife of that Dauphin who later became Charles VI (Webster's Biographical Dictionary, p.763). This name is thus a direct conflict, in the same way Diana of Wales would conflict with the wife of the current Prince of Wales. (Isabella du Dauphiné, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[Compaignie Mercurie] The name is a technical infringement on the planet
Mercury; according to the OED,
it was spelled as Mercurie in period and was
known to be a place. It's certainly famous enough to protect. We might
have argued jesuitically that, per the Administrative Handbook (p.3), the
College protects only "geographical locations" --- with emphasis on geo-,
"earth". But that line of reasoning would seem to open the door for such
submissions as House of Antares, and we have a long history of returning
extra-terrestrial names ...while the name might be argued to conflict with
the Roman god Mercury --- who, like the planet, meets the criteria for
protection in the Handbook --- allusions to supernatural guardians were
common enough to allow us to call it clear. That is, Compaignie Mercurie
no more conflicts with the god Mercury than, say, the Company of St. Jude
conflicts with St. Jude. (Brynjolfr Myrkjartansson, October, 1992, pg. 26)
[Order of Black Widows] With regard to the possible conflict with the
Marvel comic book character the Black Widow, I believe such character names
should only be protected if the name is likely to be known outside the
ranks of comic book aficionados. Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, for
instance, are well-known enough to be protected; the Black Widow is not.
(She's a background character in the Marvel universe; she doesn't even rate
her own book.) (Kingdom of Trimaris, October, 1992, pg. 33)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
Henceforth, I shall apply the previous standard of non-identity: a significant change in spelling and pronunciation will clear a submitted name from the mundane name. [For a full discussion, see under NAMES -- Legal] (Kenrick atte Kyte, November, 1992, pg. 8)
[Rose Thorne] Under our standards for protecting comic-book characters (v. the LoAR cover letter of 5 Dec 92), this does not conflict with Rose Thorn, the secret identity of one of DC's superheroines. The character is minor even by DC's standards, never having had her own book. (Rose Thorne, November, 1992, pg. 9)
The movie Castle Keep, produced in the 60s, does not appear to have been important enough to protect. (Shire of Castle Keep, December, 1992, pg. 7)
[Duncan MacLeod] The name [conflicts] with Duncan MacLeod, hero of the "Highlander" television series. We hated to have to consider the latter conflict, but a random sampling of local SCA folk showed the majority recognized the character. (Duncan MacLeod of Edinbane, December, 1992, pg. 19)
[House Hellcat vs. the Marval superherione Hellcat] As Hellcat has never had her own book, I don't consider her worthy of protection. (Patricia Treise Hellcat, January, 1993, pg. 1)
With the recent increase in the availability of ordinaries -- old and new, compiled both within and without the Society --- it may soon become necessary to update the List of Protected Armory. Currently, the Administrative Handbook (p.3) restricts protection of mundane armory to the sources found in Appendix E. Strictly speaking, no other mundane sources should be checked for conflict (which came as a surprise to me, and possibly to others).
For practical conflict-checking purposes, the important sources in Appendix E are Fabulous Heraldry, the Lyon Ordinary I, Parker, Papworth, Woodward (or the Ordinary compiled therefrom for SCA use), and the Military Ordinary. Master Da'ud added Renesse (the ordinary to Rietstap) and Public Heraldry to the List.
The other sources listed in Appendix E --- e.g. Neubecker, Siebmacher, Foster, Whitney Smith's Flags --- contain armory that is likewise protected, at least in theory. In practice, since these sources aren't organized as ordinaries, conflict checking from them has been sporadic. However, the compilation of ordinaries has been a cottage industry in the College of Arms for many years now. Examples of ordinaries compiled by our heralds include: Hateful Heraldry (in the '81 Symposium Proceedings), Heraldry of the Manesse (in the '83 Symposium Proceedings), An Ordinary of Irish Arms (in Aspilogia Pennsica, '84), and the Ordinaries of Australian Corporate and Personal Heraldry compiled by the Lochac College. I have no doubt, then, that the other sources in Appendix E could spawn ordinaries in the near future.
There's some overlap of our sources: for example, most of the items in Siebmacher are also found in Rietstap. If only the latter is checked for conflict, that should suffice. But the armory in the above-mentioned Australian Ordinaries is too recent to be found in most of our other sources; ditto for the Canadian armory that's recently been compiled. Given the ability to check them for conflict, should we do so? The same logic that would have us protect the items in Papworth should lead us to protect these items as well; and yet the task of conflict-checking should not be allowed to grow exponentially.
The question parallels the Rules discussion that Lord Palimpsest recently announced; and yet, to some degree it's independent of that discussion. Even if no change were made to our current policy, we'd still need to decide which (if any) of the new ordinaries should be added to List of Protected Armory. For now, I propose to add those items that are readily available, lead to meaningful conflict calls (for the purposes of our re-creation), and which have been cited in recent months.
I therefore propose to add the following references to Appendix E:
I considered adding the Dictionnaire Heraldique as well. This is a French roll of arms, c.1723; its advantage is that everyone listed therein was Important at the time, peers and the like. The grand majority of these items are also found in Renesse (Rietstap), so we're wouldn't be protecting anything new. For that same reason, however, I've refrained from explicitly adding it to the List for the moment.
What about the ordinary of Canadian armory ("The Great White Ordinary")? Or the Ordinary to Luftwaffe badges, compiled by Lord Star? Our goal is not to protect every armory in the space-time continuum, but only those whose infringement would be detrimental to the Society's medieval re-creation. Arguments can be made for either including those sources ("If we protect Australian and British, we should protect Canadian"), or ignoring them ("How many people would even recognize a Luftwaffe badge?"). For the moment, I don't intend to add them to Appendix E; but I would like to hear your opinions as to whether they should be added in the near future. Please present your thoughts (possibly concurrent with the Rules discussion) over the next few months. (28 March, 1993 Cover Letter (January, 1993 LoAR), pp. 3-4)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
When considering conflict against an historical figure, we must consider all the names by which the figure is known; the removal of the middle name is thus usually insufficient difference. John Kennedy, for instance, would definitely conflict with John Fitzgerald Kennedy; Thomas Edison, with Thomas Alva Edison; and so on. See the case of Patrick MacManus, LoAR of March 92, p.14. (William Hayes, January, 1993, pg. 32)
oW.M. Hawley and Kei Chappelear. Mon: The Japanese Family Crest. In adding this to Appendix E, I'm aware that some commenters feel that Japanese armory is inappropriate in a Society intended to recreate the Middle Ages of Europe; Mon shouldn't be registered, they feel, and mundane Mon certainly shouldn't be protected. The decision to exclude Japanese culture, however, is neither mine nor the College's to make; that can only be decided by the Board of Directors. Until the Board explicitly informs me that Japanese culture is no longer acceptable in the SCA, we will continue to register Japanese-style armory --- which means we will protect Japanese armory. (10 June, 1993 Cover Letter (May, 1993 LoAR), pg. 2)
The conflict cited against the badge of the VF10 (the Grim Reapers) ... would be valid if it came from a protected source. In point of fact, it comes from an as-yet-unpublished update to the Military Ordinary; since it isn't yet distributed, it cannot be considered for inclusion in Appendix E, our list of protected sources. (Li Kung Lo, May, 1993, pg. 9)
The name conflicts with William Ashbless, a major character in the award-winning novel The Anubis Gates, by Tim Powers. There's enough overlap between Society membership and science fiction fandom that we have to consider conflicts like these; and by the criteria set forth in the Administrative Handbook, the character is important enough to protect. (William Ashbliss, May, 1993, pg. 21)
[Wilhelm von Regensburg] Regensburg being the capital of the Upper Palatinate of Bavaria, the LOI questioned whether the name conflicted with those Dukes of Bavaria named Wilhelm. However, the Dukes in question never seemed to have been called of Regensburg; the name no more conflicts with the Dukes of Bavaria than John of London would conflict with King John (whose capital was London). (Wilhelm von Regensburg, June, 1993, pg. 3)
[Order of Perseus] Unlike the cases of Compaignie Mercurie (returned Oct 92) and House Sirius (returned Oct 91), the use of a constellation name here neither infringes on an important location, nor appears to be a claim to extraterrestriality. On the first point, a constellation is not a place; it's a pattern of lights. On the second point, most constellations were named either for artifacts or after characters from ancient myth --- which, during the Renaissance, were also the source for Order names. Given the recent registration of the Order of the Pisces (LoAR of June 92), this is acceptable. (Order of Perseus (Barony of Carolingia), June, 1993, pg. 7)
[Gwenllian ferch Llywelyn] Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the last Welsh prince of Wales, had a daughter named Gwenllian, but she does not appear to have been important enough to protect from conflict: she appears in no general references, not even in the articles on her father. (Gwenllian ferch Llywelyn, June, 1993, pg. 8)
Joan Wolf is the name of the author of a number of historical novels, including one (The Road to Avalon) set in Arthurian England. However, she doesn't seem to be important enough to protect: she is not listed in our standard references, nor did a poll of randomly chosen populace find any who recalled her Name. (Joan Wolf, June, 1993, pg. 11)
[Or, two dragons combattant, tails entwined in base gules, within an orle of golpes] Possible conflict was cited with the attributed arms of Uther Pendragon. Papworth gives two possible blazons (p.988): Or, two dragons gules crowned vert, and Or, two wyverns without legs respecting each other vert crowned gules. Dennys (Heraldic Imagination, p.189) notes that Or, two dragons addorsed vert crowned gules was the usual armory attributed to Uther in medieval treatises. We may speculate that there were other variants on these themes as well --- including a variant with which this submission might conflict --- but without an explicit blazon to that effect, we should give the submitter the benefit of the doubt. Particularly, against the first of Papworth's blazons above, we assume the dragons are not combattant; there's a CD for posture of half the monsters, and a CD for the orle of roundels. (Rhys le Vyngnon, June, 1993, pg. 13)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
The Canadian Ordinary (somtimes called the "Great White Ordinary") has not been added to Appendix E, and is therefore not protected --- nor has there been a great cry from the College to have it added. (Julienne Dubarry, August, 1993, pg. 3)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]
Two ...possible problems with the name were mentioned in the commentary .. . The second question, raised in the LOI, involved the use in the SCA, by a Society group, of the mundane name of the same group. Most of the officers and members of Windwardshire are mundanely the officers and members of the Windward Foundation, a 20th Century non-profit corporation. The Society does not permit its members to use their legal names as their SCA names, requiring some distance between modern and medieval identities; the prohibition is found in the Administrative Guidelines, Protected Items -- I: Any Name or Armory used by the Submitter outside the Society. The LOI raised the question as to whether the prohibition applied to groups as well as individuals.
A case could be made for maintaining some distance between modern and medieval identities, even for groups. The two most persuasive concerns are the need to avoid confusion, and the desire to not compel SCA members to join a modern group. The first concern can be better illustrated by, say, a campus group submitting the name of their college (e.g. a group at Santa Monica College, here in Caid, submitting the name College of Santa Monica). The second concern (which I hasten to note is as yet hypothetical!) would have the mundane group require membership in the mundane group as a condition for participating with the SCA group; it's irrelevant whether such a requirement were de jure or simply through social pressure.
The first concern was addressed by the commenters. Most of them felt that, just as simple non-identity prevented confusion between an individual's legal and Society names, it would prevent confusion between a group's legal and Society names. The mundane group is not called Windwardshire; the SCA group is never called anything else.
The other concern is not solely the province of the College of Arms. All the Powers That Be in a Kingdom should object to any illegal coercion such as I've described. A submissions herald might suspect, by a group's choice of name, that such coercion may be happening; if so, he should bring it to the attention of the Kingdom Seneschal, and the two officers should deal with the matter as seems best ...But the mere suspicion of possible future misconduct by a group is not, by itself, grounds for returning their name [name returned for mundane conflict]. (Windwardshire, August, 1993, pg. 14)
This client's original submission ...was made in the Middle Kingdom in 1976. The name was rejected by Laurel in August 1979 for being too close to the Virgin Mary. Current evidence indicates that this decision was in error. While mildness was an attribute ascribed to the Virgin Mary (see the OED for citations under mild), so were most of the other virtues. Nowhere in A Dictionary of Mary by Donald Attwater (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1956), including in the entry "Titles of Mary", is this particular formation found. The Mild doesn't seem to have been one of her formal titles (such as the Virgin or Queen of Heaven), nor was it so intimately associated with Mary (as would be the Immaculate or the Sorrowful) that the usage must of necessity refer to her. (Mary the Mild, September, 1993, pg. 17)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Proper) |Top of Page |Next Page (Rainbow)]