[Ansteorra] Of SCA membership interest

Kimberly Koch sarapenrose at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 8 16:02:09 PDT 2004


I know Master Francois, and I take issue with this
post. He is a kind and gentle person who has done an
enormous amount of work for the Kingdom of Ansteorra
and for the Society as a whole, and this is an
extraordinarily inappropriate attack on his character.

I wholeheartedly encourage anyone who disagrees with
the College of Herald's recent change in policy to
express their opinions to Francois and his successor,
but I think it behooves us - especially those of us
who are peers or royal peers - to express those
opinions through polite and logical discourse, rather
than resorting to heated emotional appeals and
name-calling on society-wide lists. 

The implication that the decision was based on some
sort of gender bias is patently untrue - the intent
was to bring SCA practice into line with period
practice. Everyone, before you write to Laurel with
your opinions, please take the time to read the text
of original decision. 

Countess Sara Penrose

--- Robert Stewart <skerritheviking at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good day everyone.  I have forwarded, well
> copy/pasted, the entirety of an e-mail I received on
> the Atenveldt list from Duchess Lyn.  I received Her
> Grace's permission to cross-post this.  Please keep
> in mind that this does not pertain to a person's
> personal arms, just King, Queen, Prince, Princess,
> and Kingdom.  If anyone wants to send this on to
> other lists, please let me know and I will put you
> in touch with Her Grace. 
> Lord Skerri Valtorsson 
> My Lords and Ladies,
> Most of you who know me are well aware of how I feel
> about petitions 
> and letter-campaigns.  There are times, however,
> that situations call 
> for public outcry, and I believe this is such a
> time.  I address my 
> concern to every Knight in the Society, to every
> Queen's Champion, 
> past and present, be it heavy weapons, rapier,
> archery, equestrian, or 
> any other I may have left out in my moments of
> anger.  (Please forgive 
> me.)  I write further to every person who swells
> with pride when he or 
> she sees the regalia of the Queen on a banner, a
> pillow, or even a 
> simple favor.  I write to every man who dreams of
> putting his lady on 
> the throne, every little girl who dreams of being a
> princess; to every 
> woman who has ever felt the sting of gender
> prejudice.
> The Laurel King at Arms is the final authority at
> the corporate level 
> to determine whether or not your device passes. 
> Most of us have felt 
> some level of frustration with that process,
> including all the 
> heralds.  This time, in my opinion, he has gone too
> far.  In the 
> December letter that office publishes monthly that
> announces heraldic 
> decisions, he published that as of July 2004, no new
> devices will be 
> registered for any new queen, princess, or the heirs
> (prince or 
> princess) of any kingdom or principality (tanist or
> tanista).  This 
> means that Northshield and Lochac will not have arms
> for their queen, 
> crown prince, or crown princess. Further, his letter
> discourages all 
> the older kingdoms from using the heraldry that has
> been given to 
> these positions, although he admits he does not have
> the authority to 
> take existing heraldry away. This has no effect on
> personal armory, 
> but since the justification is simply that they are
> women, one wonders 
> where this could lead. 
> I find this action abominable.  I think it is a rude
> and capricious 
> act by someone stretching his muscles because he
> can.  I will let you 
> all come to your own conclusions as to the meaning
> of his action and 
> what you intend to do about it.  I know that very
> few actions on the 
> part of the Board have gleaned more than a handful
> of outraged 
> letters.  Following this reasoning, I think a
> thousand letters to an 
> officer decrying his action might tell him how
> people really feel. I 
> ask you to share with this man how you feel about
> his decision.  If 
> you agree with him and wish to lend him your
> support, that is your 
> right as well. 
> Please keep in mind that this man is stepping down
> from his office 
> very soon.  Your letter may actually be received by
> his successor, a 
> kind and reasonable woman who may be just as
> horrified as we are.  I 
> urge you to keep your verbiage rational and
> reasonable, short and to 
> the point.  I have listed his name and official
> email address below, 
> followed by the actual text of his decision. Pay
> particular attention 
> to his reasoning and the final two paragraphs of his
> decision.  
> Thank you for your indulgence with my rather
> emotional reaction.
> Lyn
> François la Flamme (R. Wendel Bordelon)
> herald@ sca.org (remove space)
> >From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs
> This month we were called upon to reflect on the
> SCA's policy of
> registering devices for a consort (either for a
> kingdom or a
> princpality), or for royal heirs apparent (also for
> a kingdom or
> principality). We have no evidence of a real-world
> consort having arms 
> that differed from her husband's (except for
> marshalling). We likewise 
> have no evidence of an heir apparent having arms
> that were not a 
> differenced version of the arms of their parent,
> except for 
> marshalling, and for fiefs that the heir apparent
> might have had (such 
> as the Dauphiné, ruled by the dauphin, the heir to
> the French throne).
> The practice of registering devices for the consort
> and heirs is 
> falling out of favor in the SCA in general. Some of
> the newer kingdoms 
> have not registered devices for their consorts and
> their heirs. We 
> applaud the trend to a more period practice with
> regards to arms,
> or lack of separate armory for the consort and
> heirs.
> Because the SCA device is parallel to real-world
> practices for arms, 
> the SCA shall no longer register devices for
> consorts or for heirs to 
> a kingdom or principality after July 2004.
> Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or
> principalities without
> consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom
> arms, and kingdoms 
> may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to
> display the
> kingdom arms differenced by a label or other
> standard mark of cadency. 
> This matches some period armorial display for royal
> arms.
> Kingdoms and principalites that currently have arms
> registered for the
> consort or heirs may submit changes to the
> registered armory via the
> application of the grandfather clause. We shall
> require a poll of the
> populace showing support for changes to the armory.
> Note that this 
> poll has not previously been explicitly required for
> the armory of the 
> heirs apparent, but it seems appropriate to require
> such a poll, which 
> is already required for consorts.
> Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms
> registered for 
> the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider
> following period 
> practice and to discontinue the use of the armory.  
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway -
> Enter today
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list