[ANSTHRLD] Repeal of the Modest Proposal?

Tim McDaniel tmcd at jump.net
Sun Jun 2 11:34:28 PDT 2002


To the Ansteorran Heralds' List from Daniel, greetings.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Timothy Rayburn <timothy at elfsea.net> wrote:
> With the humor and respect I must say: No, Chicken Little, the sky
> is not falling.
>
> Wreath is, in fact, only citing a portion of the RfS that has
> existed for some time. ... The above citation from the long existing
> RfS clearly supports what Wreath ruled on. ...  I would take a step
> back, realize the rule has been on the books for years, and that it
> is cited so rarely because it isn't a /major/ problem for us in
> conflict checking.

Bless you, Timothy of Glastinbury, for expressing so clearly what
I was just about to write (and with much better style and humor too).
I entirely agree with you.  If I may expand on it?

What Wreath actually wrote in the 10/01 cover letter should be read in
full to understand the position.

    _From Wreath: Presumption Due to Name and Armory Combination_

    This month's submissions for Kieran Hunter and Brienus Holebroc
    raised questions concerning name and armory presumption. Rules for
    Submission XI states, "Armory may not claim status or powers the
    submitter does not possess, as is required by General Principle 3b
    of these rules. This section defines categories of presumptuous
    armorial claims." RfS XI.2 states: "Charge and Name
    Combination. Armory that asserts a strong claim of identity in the
    context of the submitter's name is considered presumptuous".

    In both this month's submissions, the question was: is there a
    presumptuously strong claim of identity, implying status or powers
    the submitter does not possess, when the submitter's name and
    device resembles the name and device of a real-world armiger whose
    arms are not protected by the SCA?

    In the vast majority of cases, an SCA Alan Smith could bear the
    exact same arms as a real-world, but unprotected, Alan Smith. This
    is true even if the real-world armiger is found in a standard
    heraldic source such as Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials,
    Burke's Peerage or Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to Heraldry.  In
    order for there to be presumption, it must be demonstrated that a
    significant number of SCA members would find that the name and
    arms combination claimed "status or powers the submitter does not
    possess". In some cases, a significant number of SCA members will
    recognize, and find presumptuous, a combination of real-world name
    and arms, even if the use of the name or arms alone would be
    innocuous. Such possible cases of presumption will have to be
    determined, as they have been so far in the College of Arms, on a
    case by case basis.

    Note that if a real-world coat of arms is not considered important
    enough to protect in the SCA, a CD will certainly suffice to
    remove any problem of presumption due to the combination of name
    and armory.

    In Kieran Hunter's submission, it was ruled that there is
    presumption in a case where the arms have no difference from that
    of a Scottish Clan Chief, and the surname of the submitter matches
    the Clan Chief's surname.  While either the name or arms could be
    registered alone, the combination implies a status that the
    submitter does not possess, and is presumptuous.  As stated above,
    one CD will remove the presumption due to name and arms
    combination.

So note that it's a quite narrow precedent: it's a Scottish clan chief
name (<clerk>damn, I should have lowercased "clan chief"; "King" and
"Baron" and such should be capitalized only as a prefixed title like
"Baron Bruce", not "various court barons"</clerk>) AND it being no CDs
away.  I think there have been attempts to register a surname of
Campbell with "Gyronny Or and sable" that have hit presumption
discussions too, but I can't find them quickly.  Note that she says
that the "vast majority" of cases can't hit it.  See below for the
Brienus case, illustrating it.

Note that Wreath wrote about "significant number of SCA members".
Clan headships have unique visibility in the SCA, due to English being
the primary language of the Society, so many heraldry books touching
on them, and Scottish clannishness being so popular since the early
1800s.  (The Modest Proposal protects a lot more British arms than,
say, German, for just that familiarity reason.)  Scots clans are more
visible, I'd say, than provinces.  In names A-C in the O&A (after
which I decided to stop), there are eleven pieces of protected armory
for clan chiefs.  I think there was a proposal early in Modest
Proposal days to give blanket protection to all Scottish clan chief
arms.

But there's another reason that only long-time CoA members would see.
David of Moffat, Electrum Herald, is one of the longest-serving CoA
heralds, one of the great CoA armory experts, former An Tir external
submissions heralds (just before Zenobia), one of Wreath's main local
heraldry experts.  His legal name is David Hunter of Montlaw (as
listed, e.g., on his real-world matriculation of arms from Lord Lyon
King of Arms of Scotland).  Hunter armory figured prominently in his
famous submissions, returns, and appeals, which caused some of the
most famous LoAR rulings of the past decade.  The 7/95 ruling began

       This was one of the very toughest decisions I've had to make in
       a long, long time.  The issues involved were complex, there
       were approximately seventeen pages of commentary (most of it in
       ten point type), and none of the possible resolutions
       (including return of the submission) were without drawbacks.

Also 9/96, 4/97, 8/97, 4/00.  Short of Stuart, Campbell, or Bruce,
Kieran Hunter simply couldn't have picked a more visible Scottish
surname and arms.

The Holebroc case mentioned was this:

    Brienus Holebroc. Device. Or crusilly sable, a chevron gules.

        One commenter noted that Papworth gives the arms of Richard de
        Holebroc in the 13th C as Or crusily and a chevron
        gules. There is one CD for the change of the tincture of the
        strewn charges. However, no evidence was presented that
        Richard de Holebroc's arms are protectable in the SCA, and no
        suggestion was made that they should be so considered. There
        are no Holbrooks (in any obvious spelling variant) listed
        under their own heading in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica,
        and the small number of Holbrooks in Encarta (there are no
        Holebrocs) could not be this armiger.

        It is true that, aside from minor spelling variants, the
        submitter and Richard de Holebroc share the same
        surname. However, the obscurity of Richard de Holebroc and his
        arms removes any problem of presumption due to the combination
        of name and arms. In order to be presumptuous, the submitter's
        name and arms combination must imply that he possesses status
        or powers which he does not possess. It is not presumptuous to
        appear to be related to an obscure real-world armiger. The
        presence of a CD between the two pieces of armory also removes
        any possible presumption due to the combination of name and
        arms which are not protected by the SCA. See the cover letter
        for a general discussion of presumption due to the combination
        of name and arms.

        The device is clear of conflict with Annais Eleanor de
        Montgomerie, Or masoned sable, a chevron gules. There is one
        CD for changing the field by removing the masoning, and
        another CD for adding the secondary group of strewn charges.

So I wouldn't worry.

Daniel 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)




More information about the Heralds mailing list