[ANSTHRLD] ILoI 8/01 comm., esp. #7, Marquet de la Hyet

[Paul Haines]

I noticed Daniel pointed out a few things below for my attention.

Fast-Track #3 - Gerard du Quartier
Yes, it has been noted that this device is to be pulled.

ILOI 2001-08 #7 - Marquet de la Hyet
> (Bordure: if you use this, please use the exact spelling, drop the
> double quotes, keep one leading single quote.  Tradition, e.g. the
> 6/92 LoAR Cover Letter.  It's almost iambic pentameter.)

What am I quoting here that I need to keep the exact spelling?

ILOI 2001-08 #8 - Namron
> Bordure should point out on the LoI that the motif is grandfathered to the
barony, 8/80:
> "(Fieldless) A pile wavy Or.  (For the Order of the Heart of the Sable
> Storm)".

I can handle that.  I'd appreciate it if Retiarius can make sure to include
these comments in the ICC so we don't neglect them when it comes time for
the decision meeting.

Rgds,
Alden - Bordure



----- Original Message -----
From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at jump.net>
To: <heralds at ansteorra.org>; Estrill Swet <dssweet at okstate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 1:49 AM
Subject: [ANSTHRLD] ILoI 8/01 comm., esp. #7, Marquet de la Hyet


> ILoI 8/01, commentary by Daniel de Lincolia.
>
> Though I am on Laurel staff, I don't make decisions (thank Ghu), and I
> think I can still comment on proper procedure, and even venture a
> little further.
>
>
> Water Under The Bridge:
>
> Fast-Track #1, Ciaran O'Neill, Name: I'm not at all sure, but I think
> this is mixed Gaelic-English orthography, and thus a weirdness, but
> not presently cause for return.  Whether an item with a weirdness
> ought to be fast-tracked is a larger philosophical decision.
>
> Fast-Track #3, Gerard du Quartier, Device: The perils of
> fast-tracking.  This is an instaboing.  RfS VIII.3, "Voiding and
> fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in
> the center of the design.".  A one-sided ordinary, not being in the
> center of the design, cannot be fimbriated.  E.g., LoAR 6a/92:
>
>      The statement in the LoI that "the fimbriation of only two sides
>      of the canton follows the model of how we fimbriate chiefs" is
>      entirely correct.  We do not fimbriate chiefs, and we do not
>      fimbriate cantons.
>
> Bordure might want to withdraw this one.
>
> By the way, the plural is "fleurs-de-lys" (or "lis").  An "s" goes on
> the noun, "fleur".
>
> ============================================================
>
> 2. Burke Kyriell MacDonald
>
> [Badge] This would bring him up to his registration limit of 4 pieces
> of armory.  The Ansteorran widget is usually blazoned "a mullet of 5
> greater and 5 lesser points".
>
>
> 4.  Constance MacLeod
>
> [Device] Coffins have been registered (as charges) only twice before:
>
> Starkhafn, Barony of|8210C|b|(Fieldless) A six-sided coffin palewise
> sable charged in chief with a mullet of eight points argent.
>
> Tristram Lorenz of the Coffins|8503A|d|Sable, a pall between a
> fleur-de-lys and two coffins palewise argent.
>
> Older registrations are not necessarily evidence of current
> acceptibility.  However, Laurel hasn't even considered any since 1986,
> so we can't say that they're *not* acceptable.  I don't have my Pict
> Dict to hand to say whether this is what's shewn there as the
> SCA-standard coffin.  For what it's worth, *I* instantly recognized
> them as intending to be coffins -- though that's no guarantee of
> anything.
>
>
> 5. Ferchar mac Ailella
>
> [Name] "Saint Gabriel's Report" is singularly unhelpful for anyone who
> doesn't know what "Saint Gabriel" might be or where to find its info.
> Further, the doc. supplied doesn't say what the period spelling was,
> or even what the name was used as -- conceivably, it could be a place
> name, say.
>
> The report can be found at
> http://www.panix.com/~gabriel/public-bin/showfinal.cgi?2332+0 .
> "<Fearchar> is a late-period spelling of a name that appears several
> times in Irish records between 695 and 900 as <Ferchar>", so it looks
> like this is the period spelling, and the context shows that it's a
> given name.
>
> 6.  Kathryn atte Unicorn
>
> [Household name] Documenting period words, while necessary, is not
> enough.  I bet "Star", "Ship", and "Enterprise" are all period.  I
> suggest that the College ought to look for evidence of similar period
> name *constructions*.  In particular, for the only three examples
> supplied of the form "<adjective> <noun>", the adjective was a color
> and the noun was a common natural animal.  I think that at most they
> would support "White Unicorn" or "Gray Unicorn", but even that's a
> (small) extrapolation from the evidence presented.
>
>
> 7.  Marquet de la Hyet
>
> [Device appeal] It is prudent of the submitter to want the appeal to
> appear on the kingdom ILoI.  However, for as long as I've been in
> Ansteorra, appeals to Laurel Sovereign of Arms have always been on the
> ILoI, just like any other items to go to Laurel.
>
> - The old CoA Admin. Handbook, IV.E, says "Such officers must forward
>   the appeal in a timely manner", but "timely manner" is the exact
>   phrase used two and three paragraphs down for all submissions.  So
>   it can't be delayed more than other submissions, and any level is
>   utterly forbidden to forbid an appeal past them (q.v.), but kingdom
>   doesn't have to fast-track it either.
>
> - I would expect that ask-Sheyk Da'ud ibn Auda, twice Laurel, would
>   have said something long ago if the practice weren't kosher, er,
>   halal.
>
> - With it on the ILoI, the Ansteorran College has a chance to fix
>   errors, look up precedents, debate issues that maybe weren't
>   considered in the original decision, and generally polish it up for
>   the College of Arms.
>
> One error to note is the submission history.  It's important to give a
> correct history so that we can see that it's exactly the same as
> before, we can read the exact text of the return, and so forth.  For
> this one, I spent a little time flipping thru mid-2000 AGs before I
> gave up and checked Griffin's on-line index (bless you, G).  In any
> event, the date of return is not useful for anything but timeliness
> (q.v.).  In normal times, you'd expect the decision results to be in
> the next month's AG, and the ILoI to have been in the AG two months
> before, but that hasn't been the case recently.  -- This one was item
> #7 on the 4/01 ILoI.  I can't locate the collated commentary or the
> decision, so I guess it was probably ruled on 6/01.
>
> Timeliness: it was stated in the old rules (before May 1990) that
> appeals had to be timely.  That's not stated now, except precedents
> for hardship or grandfather cases, but it is possible that Laurel
> might not look kindly on an appeal of a decision from, for example, 10
> years back.
>
> (By the way, Laurel level has split the office duties: Mari nic Bryan
> is Pelican Queen of Arms for names, and Zenobia Naphthali is the Queen
> of Arms for armory.  Laurel King of Arms, Francois la Flamme, will
> rule only on appeals from them.  Thus, "Laurel might not look kindly"
> here has to be understood as synecdoche for "Laurel level", or
> metynomy for "the armory or names Queen of Arms".  -- If you don't
> know those words, look them up.  To bastardize Browning, a man's reach
> should exceed his vocabulary, or what's a metaphor?)
>
>
> Appeals are difficult.  Most appeals fail, mostly because they are not
> supported.  However, by definition, there's a submitter who's
> dissatisfied enough with a decision to want to make a federal case out
> of it.  A return of an appeal makes the situation worse, so it
> behooves us to know the process and be careful.  This is the most
> recent Admin Handbook text to hand (I think it hasn't changed
> significantly):
>
>      E. Right of Appeal - A submitter shall have the right to appeal
>      any return to the administrative level immediately above that at
>      which the submission was returned.  All appeals must be supported
>      by new documentation or other proof that the original submission
>      was returned in error or by compelling evidence that the
>      submission was not properly considered at the time of return.
>      Appeals must be submitted through the appropriate heraldic
>      officers specified for such actions by the submitter's kingdom of
>      residence.  Such officers must forward the appeal in a timely
>      manner, with or without recommendations, to the appropriate
>      level.  Once all avenues of appeal within the heraldic hierarchy
>      have been exhausted, appeal may be made directly to the Board of
>      Directors.
>
> Note the "new documentation or ... not properly considered".  This
> case isn't a new documentation case, because no evidence was presented
> of similar period designs (though some commenter might find some,
> which would help).
>
> The arguments presented by the client are not really usable as
> written.  However, one part can be rephrased to be valid.
>
> "The client maintains it is blazonable and therefore registerable.".
> Um, no.  "Argent, a lion argent" is blazonable.  "Lozengy vair and
> checky gules and Or, semy of fleams and flames counterchanged" is
> blazonable.  "[Fieldless] A helm atop an escutcheon sustained by two
> lions respectant guardant argent" is blazonable.  None is remotely
> registerable, due to style grounds.  (The converse of a true statement
> is not necessarily a true statement.  "If it's period style, it's
> blazonable" (itself false: Mortimer) would not support "If it's
> blazonable, it's period style".)
>
> "... our kingdom does not have the experience to make such a return
> with complete confidence ...".  I raised an eyebrow at this.  I could
> show this to just three Ansteorrans and get 30 years' armorial
> experience eyeballing it -- Da'ud, Tadhg, and me, and Da'ud is the
> second-longest continuous member of the SCA CoA.
>
> Fortunately for the client, you don't have to consider it an
> experience issue.  What you really want here is as old, famous, and
> frequently used as "non scriptum, non est".  It's the traditional
> statement used for many years on Letters of Intent for such issues.
>
> "'Tis a judgement call for Laurel, I'm afraid."
>
> (Bordure: if you use this, please use the exact spelling, drop the
> double quotes, keep one leading single quote.  Tradition, e.g. the
> 6/92 LoAR Cover Letter.  It's almost iambic pentameter.)
>
> There are some things that are intrinsically judgment calls, where you
> can't point to a clear rule or precedent.  Most notably: RfS X.5
> visual conflict, for example, or names that sound similar but not
> quite identical, or pictorial heraldry.  There's really no substitute
> to ask the College of Arms to all throw in their two cents, and Laurel
> to hold it up in front of their meeting and ask "Opinions?".
>
> (There are some senior heralds that say that kingdoms ought *never* to
> return judgment calls, and that opinion doesn't raise eyebrows.  Other
> senior heralds say that kingdoms still have the right to do so, and
> they would better serve their clients to make such returns quickly for
> egregious cases.)
>
> Oh, and as noted above, "Laurel" himself won't consider it, unless
> it's returned by Zenobia and it's appealed again.
>
> A better-worded statement for the LoI might look like this (assuming
> that the submission history is right).
>
>     This item was returned by kingdom in June 2001 for modern style,
>     appearing to be "abstract or op-art design".  The client believes
>     that it is not, and would like the College of Arms to consider it.
>     [If someone finds period evidence, insert it here.]
>     The Ansteorran College [supports|does not support|neither supports
>     nor opposes] the appeal.
>
>     'Tis a judgment call for Laurel, I'm afraid.
>
> What will Zenobia do?  Well, it really 'tis a judgment call for
> Zenobia, I'm afraid.  I can make no prediction.
>
>
> 8.  Namron
>
> [Badge] I thought "white tornado" was the trademark of Ajax Cleaner,
> (TM) Colgate-Palmolive?
>
> RfS VIII.5, Fieldless Style: "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."  Blazoning it "a pile
> wavy couped" shows that it's not throughout, but I'm not completely
> 100.00% sure that that would get it past the prohibition.
> Fortunately, it doesn't matter here, because Bordure should point out
> on the LoI that the motif is grandfathered to the barony, 8/80:
> "(Fieldless) A pile wavy Or.  (For the Order of the Heart of the Sable
> Storm)".
>
>
>
> Daniel "inexperienced, my Aunt Fanny Jane" de Lincolia
> --
> Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at jump.net;
> if that fail, my work address is tmcd at us.ibm.com.
>  "To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting
every-
>  thing up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka
Korpela)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds
>