[ANSTHRLD] Repeal of the Modest Proposal?
Ld Morgan
LdMorgan at cox.net
Mon Jun 3 09:17:57 PDT 2002
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
To the Ansterran Heralds' List from Morgan MacAlpin
Tim, you are correct in the fact that someone did try to register
the name of Campbell with "Gyronny Or and Sable. That happen back about
two years ago in the Shire of Mendersham.
Morgan MacAlpin
Tim McDaniel wrote:
>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)
>
>_______________________________________________
>Heralds mailing list
>Heralds at ansteorra.org
>http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds
>
--
More information about the Heralds
mailing list