Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud Ibn Auda (2nd year)
"While in the past arms have been registered to the regions of Ansteorra and Calontir, a number of commenters questioned whether this is a precedent we should still follow. In a discussion with the Chairman of the Board of Directors, she recommended against the registration of the names and armory of regions. Might we suggest that the region send in the paperwork for a change in status to that of principality?" (LoAR 7/91 p.18).
"[In addition to the conflict problem] a more serious problem is that registration would imply the acceptance by the Society of an order, membership in which is based on gender. If we are not willing to accept an order all of whose members could only be male, we should not give our 'stamp of approval' to one whose members can only be female." (LoAR 8/91 p.25).
"The Grandfather clause cannot apply in cases where the submitted arms have a conflict to which the original device would not be subject. Since his father's arms do not conflict with <name>, but only his own [arms conflict], the grandfather clause cannot be applied here." (LoAR 9/91 p.20).
[Canton arms using an armorial practice, no longer permitted, found in Baronial arms] "If this design were closer to the arms of the 'parent' Barony... we might see registering the 'forbidden' laurel wreath beneath the pile to the 'child' group. However, the laurel wreath beneath a pile appears to be the only element in common with [parent group]. As a consequence we do not feel that the grandfather clause should be applied here." [The device was returned] (LoAR 4/92 p.16).
[An attempt by a Barony to register arms for the Baroness] "Lady Harpy has stated it best: 'The Baroness of [Barony]has arms already - they are the arms of the Barony! A Barony does not have a 'sovereign' and 'consort.' (We ignore, for the moment, Palatine Baronies - which are another matter altogether.) A Baroness holds her lands from the Crown, just as a Baron does. If a Barony has both a Baron and Baroness they jointly hold it from the Crown with equal rights and responsibilities. Let us not try to force Baronies into the same mold as Kingdoms and Principalities. Their heads are chosen differently and symbolize something different. To assign arms to a territorial Baroness that are different from the arms of the Barony is to say that she is not a 'real' ruler of the Barony but merely an appurtenance to the Baron. This is not my understanding of the status of a Baroness (and would, in my opinion, be an insult to territorial Baronesses everywhere.)' There is no reason for, and appear to be compelling reasons against, registration of separate arms for the Baron and Baroness of a Barony." (LoAR 4/92 p.19).
[Re: an order where it was noted in submission that membership was only open to one gender] "Regarding the 'imposition' (as stated in the LoI) 'of mundane political values on the medieval functions of the Society'... it must be reiterated that the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. is a 20th Century non-profit, educational corporation which has to obey a lengthy list of national, state, and local regulations before it can begin to impose its own rules upon its members. (Appendix A to Corpora notes that 'The SCA, Inc. as a corporate person, along with all of its members as citizens, must obey the law of whatever jurisdictions apply to them in exactly the same fashion as all other corporations or citizens of those jurisdictions.') As an officer of that corporation, the Director of Heraldic Research for the SCA, Inc.does have certain responsibilities to ensure that his actions in fulfilling the duties of his office do not accept for the Corporation or imply acceptance by the Corporation of the actions or statements of any of its subdivisions (of which the <submitting area> is one) which would knowingly violate any of those laws, including anti-discrimination laws.
As applied to this particular case, two written statements by the Corporation seem particularly on point: In the General Principles of the Rules for Submissions of the College of Arms it is stated that 'no submission will be registered that is detrimental to the educational purposes or good name of the Society, or the enjoyment of its participants because of offense that may be caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by its use.' The second is a reiteration of the Society's long-standing nondiscrimination policy made in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors held January 12, 1992: 'The Board affirmed that the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., has no policy whatsoever of denial of membership or participation based on reasons of race, age, creed, color, gender or sexual preference.'... The stated purposes of the submitted 'order' are in violation of that policy... This was verified in a conversation on this submission with the Steward of the Society, who noted that 'the SCA specifically does not limit things by gender', and that such an order is 'not appropriate to our non-profit status'. The Director of Heraldic Research of the SCA, Inc. cannot in good conscience, unless specifically told to do so by his 'boss', the Board of Directors of the SCA Inc., register this...
The submitting herald should note that continuing to use an Order name which has been returned by Laurel violates Corpora (VII.B.2 and VII.B.3), which states in pertinent part that 'the names and insignia of these awards and orders {both armigerous and non-armigerous} must be ratified by the Laurel Sovereign of Arms.' " (LoAR 4/92 pps. 24-25).
"We do not see [a CD] for inverting the serpent [glissant palewise/erect]" (LoAR 4/92 p.18).
"It may be that not every name in Withycombe is documented as well as it should be as a given name in Period. The given here is one example of that. Lord Laurel is, however, extremely reluctant to start going through all of our standard names sources making lists of exceptions, which lists will never be as widely distributed as the source books are. (Look at the trouble we have getting people to stop using entire books, like Kolatch, and it might give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem as I see it." [Note: this decision does not necessarily seem compatible with current or past precedent: note the decision on 'Tirion' on the LoAr of 8/91 p.16] (LoAR 8/91 p.7).
"The given name was documented on the LoI only from Kolatch. As a number of my predecessors have stated many times, KOLATCH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR DOCUMENTATION! Please Do not use it in the future!" (LoAR 9/91 p.2).
"As has been noted before (and no doubt will be stated again): DO NOT USE LOUGHEAD FOR NAME DOCUMENTATION! If I may quote Lord Green Anchor, 'Loughead's work is a 'what to name your baby book' with pretensions and is worse than useless, nay, full of errors.' " (LoAR 11/91 p.5).
"We share Lord Trefoil's doubts regarding dismissing conflicts from the Matsuya Piece Goods Store on a 'pick and choose' basis. As we have said before regarding some of the names in Withycombe or armory in Fabulous Heraldry, we are unwilling to start making lists of exceptions to standard references. The [other problem with the armory] simplifies matters this time; however, unless and until Matsuya can be shown to be unreliable in a manner similar to, say, Loughead, we will continue to use it for conflict checking." (LoAR 11/91 p.21).
"The following are hereby specifically added to Appendix E of the Administrative Handbook:
"As I have been loath to do with Withycombe and other of our 'standard' names sources, I do not wish to start going through the Bible and making lists of exceptions to the names documented therefrom. Yes, as a number of commenters noted, the name Sapphira has sufficient negative connotations in the Bible itself that it is unlikely to have been used as a name in Period. The fact remains, however, that it was in the 'pool' of available Biblical names, and it should remain available to members of the SCA until and unless proven 'guilty' of sufficient impossibility or sufficient offense to warrant banning it." (LoAR 2/92 p.10).
"Schola is not a reserved term." (LoAR 7/91 p.12).
[Manciple] "This is not an appropriate alternate title for the arts and sciences officer, having a meaning much more cognate to that of 'quartermaster'." (LoAR 8/91 p.20).
"The consideration of this [Don and Doña] issue is one that was much more complex than it at first appeared to be. Not only were the traditions of more than one kingdom at stake, but also some basic questions regarding alternate titles in the Society as a whole had to be addressed. For those of you whose primary interest is in the decision itself and not in the background and related issues, please feel free to skip down to the next to last paragraph in this section.
{A side issue here: 'Don' and 'Doña' are not titles; they are forms of address, just as 'Sir' is not a title but a form of address. One speaks of a knight as a knight; s/he is addressed as 'Sir', 'Sir {given name}', or 'Sir Knight'. The usage in at least two kingdoms of calling the advanced rapier fighters 'the Dons' is as incorrect as would be calling the members of the chivalry 'the Sirs' or the members of the other peerages 'the Masters' or 'the Mistresses'. A minor, probably particularly picky point, but one that I thought ought to be addressed.}
A question of philosophy which had to be addressed before making this ruling was how the College of Arms was going to determine 'equivalency' in the Alternate Titles List. Were we going to use dictionary definitions, apply the Society's (admittedly inverted) system on a translation basis, or apply historical usage as our yardstick? There is precedent under Master Baldwin of Erebor's tenure that historical usage would be the primary guideline in the development of the Arabic alternate titles list. The basic philosophy in developing that list was to take the perceived Society rank and try to find period equivalents to that rank, looking at both dictionary definitions and historical usage. Some titles from the standard (English) list promulgated by the Board of Directors were easy to find equivalences for: Malik and Sultan are both translated as 'king', and their historical usage matched that. Harder was 'shayk' (or 'sheik') for Baron, which was based on historical usage: the leader of a tribe or clan which claimed a certain territory, but without a corresponding dictionary equivalence. Others, like 'cadi', were even tougher still, as no direct equivalent existed historically. ('Cadi' translates as judge, and was historically a very high ranking city official. It seemed to be the closest equivalent to what the SCA considers a 'count' which was available.) Easier was 'Mu'allim' for 'Master', which was historically a title of respect and carried the connotation of 'teacher', which better fits the ideals of the Orders of the Laurel and Pelican than do the dictionary definitions of the English forms of address 'Master' and 'Mistress'. As a consequence, I believe that a judicious use of (1) historical equivalence supplemented by (2) dictionary equivalence will be our best guideline in determining the applicability of alternate titles to SCA usage.
Another question was whether or not we could consider one or two titles without considering the entire alternate titles list. In the broadest sense, I believe that we have to. We do not have the resources and knowledgeable people available to redo the entire Alternate Titles List in one fell swoop, which is probably the ideal way to deal with the Alternate Titles review. At best I believe that we can review a single language at a time (much as [Lady Harpy] has done recently for Welsh titles), which is probably our second best choice. However, there is precedent for considering a single title, as when the Board directed Mistress Alisoun to rule on two proposed alternate titles, one Mongol and the other German. I believe that if someone has done the research and makes a proposal on a single title and/or requests a specific ruling, that we have the obligation to consider that request and establish a ruling (keeping in mind always how that single title fits into the overall scheme of the Alternate Titles List). As a consequence, I do not believe that Lord Yale's (now Lord Keel's) request for a ruling on this particular form of address must wait until we can find someone to review the entire Spanish and Italian alternate titles list for us.
Based on the historical usage in the sometimes voluminous historical documentation presented by the commenters, I believe that the restriction of the forms of address 'Don' and 'Doña' to the chivalry is inappropriate. While there was some feeling that these forms of address could (and should) be restricted to the SCA peerages, the bulk of the historical evidence indicates that 'Don' and 'Doña' were throughout (but more especially in later) our period of study the actual equivalents of 'Lord' and 'Lady'. As a consequence I am opening the use of the alternate forms of address 'Don' and 'Doña' to anyone in the SCA with an AoA (or higher rank), as Spanish equivalents to Lord and Lady along with the already permissible Señor and Señora.
(The correct form of address for Knights, based on the historical documentation presented, would appear to be 'Caballero', or 'Don Caballero' (this last would be similar, but not exactly equivalent, to the English form of address 'Sir Knight'). I am recommending these forms of address be added to the Spanish Alternate Titles List as equivalents for 'Sir'.) (CL 12/21/91 pps. 2-3).
"As noted on the cover letter of December 2, 1984, and the LoAR of December 15, 1985, 'There is no 'standard' viscomital coronet, either as a physical entity or an heraldic convention.' Viscounts and Viscountesses may use the default heraldic coronet (a crown indented of three points) if they so choose." (LoAR 11/91 p.20).
"Dona is not the same as the title Doña, and therefore is not subject to restriction as a title." (LoAR 2/92 p.15).
[A cross couped gules irradiated Or] "The badge conflicts with the insignia of the International Red Cross, not by our rules, but by theirs. As stated in Corpora Appendix A, 'the Society recognizes the absolute precedence of law issued by civil authorities over any of its internal rules.' International treaty severely restricts the use of a cross couped gules, and this takes precedence over any of the Rules for Submission, including those for difference, of the SCA." (LoAR 2/92 p.20).
[Two sprays of ripe barleycorn and fructed olive proper, shaped like a wreath] "Nearly every commenter found the wreath of barleycorn and olive to be too much like the required laurel wreath for branch arms. Additionally, combining two different types of charge into a single visual unit, as is done here with the barleycorn and olive, is visually confusing and poor practice." [The badge was returned for this reason.] (LoAR 4/92 p.16).
[A beast rampant maintaining a laurel wreath] "A number of commenters expressed concern that the laurel wreath did not constitute 'a significant element of the design', as required by the Administrative Handbook, I.D.2. Given that we do not normally grant any difference for maintained charges, this opinion has weight." [The device was returned for this reason] (LoAR 4/92 p.19).
"The use of a cross couped gules should probably no longer be allowed in SCA heraldry because of the international treaties and federal law which protect that charge and restrict its use to the International Red Cross (and as a trademark to those who were using it before those treaties went into effect.)" (LoAR 5/92 p.25).
"The precedent disallowing the use of the field of Bavaria (Lozengy bendwise azure and argent) of the LoAR of 17 January 1984, p.9, appears to have been based on the use of the field by corporations in Bavaria 'as a sign of the fact that they were in Bavaria.' It does not seem to me that this is sufficient grounds for a restriction on the use of this field similar to that of, say, France Ancient, which is so closely associated with the French ruling house. I am therefore withdrawing the restriction on the use of a field lozengy bendwise or lozengy bendwise sinister argent and azure, so long as there is otherwise sufficient difference from Bavaria." (LoAR 6/92 p.4).
[(Fieldless) A fountain] "Versus... barry wavy argent and azure, this does not appear to fall under the ban on arms of pretence in XI.4 of the Rules of Submission. The fountain is a clearly defined heraldic charge in and of itself and as such would not appear to be in conflict." (LoAR 10/91 p.5).
[(Fieldless) A roundel barry wavy vert and argent] "Conflict with... Barry wavy vert and argent. The precedent cited [LoAR 10/91 p.5] does not apply here because this roundel does not have an independent heraldic existence the way a fountain does. Therefore, the ban on fieldless roundels as being presumptuous as a display of other armory applies." (LoAR 6/92 p.14).
"As drawn in the large emblazon the primary is not really recognizable as an astrolabe. It has cutouts in it through which the field shows which are not found on a real astrolabe. Drawn correctly as an astrolabe, this conflicts with...[a roundel, with] nothing for the internal diapering of the primary (similar to the conflict between a moon in her plenitude and a plate.)" (LoAR 6/92 p.15).
"Commentary was running nearly 100% against the proposal to grant a CVD versus mundane armory as we do for fieldless. Therefore, this idea will not be put into practice.
I would like to address one issue, however. The question of what should have been considered 'important royal armory', which would have been left as exceptions to the CVD for mundane armory. Some commenters seemed to think that this would have been a long list, causing much angst and gnashing of teeth among the members of the College. To my mind, such a list should include only England, France, Scotland, Ireland, The Holy Roman Empire, Leon, Castile, Aragon, Granada, and perhaps the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And national flags. End of list. End of statement." (CL 10/20/91 p.1)."
"While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half a group by line of division or as those charges on either side of an ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to charges which amount to 'less than half the group' should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the 'lesser' half of a group of charges lying on either side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient for a Clear Difference. For example, 'Per bend sinister sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper' would be allowed two CDs from 'Per bend sinister azure and argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert' with one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the charge in dexter chief." (CL 12/21/91 pps. 1-2).
"The commentary on [X.4.j.ii] seemed to be reasonably clear. As a consequence, the application of X.4.j.ii. for the granting of a Clear Difference for substantial change of type of a tertiary will be applicable only to tertiaries on an ordinary or simple, geometric shape such as a lozenge, delf or roundel. It will not be applied to charges on mullets, suns or hearts." (CL 1/6/92 p.1).
"The following are hereby specifically added to Appendix E of the Administrative Handbook:
"The Rules for Submissions, VIII.5. is revised to read:
VIII. 5. Fieldless Style - Fieldless armory must form a self-contained design. A fieldless design must have all its elements conjoined, like three feathers issuing from a crown used by the Heir Apparent to the throne of England. Since there is no field in such a design, it may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define their shape, such as bordures and orles, nor to cut off their ends, such as ordinaries or charges throughout.
The [italicized] phrase replaces 'Ideally, a fieldless design will have all its elements linked together.' " (CL 6/18/92 p.1).