[ANSTHRLD] Fwd: [SCA-PH] Consorts' arms ruling - an explanation

[Etienne de St. Amaranth]

To the list:

I have been directed by the Laurel Queen of Arms to forward the following 
explanation to our heralds' list and to have it published in the Black 
Star.  If any of the following does not make sense, please email me 
directly though you can post to the list for general discussion if you prefer.

Etienne
Star Principal Herald

> >From the Cover Letter to the December 2003 Letter of Acceptance and Return:
>
>Begin Excerpt:
> >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 principality), 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 principalities 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.
>End of Excerpt.
>
>This ruling has caused much debate and uproar amongst the Society. There has
>been a great deal of false information and name calling over what was
>perceived to be a ban on use of consorts' arms.
>
>This is false. Once registered, always registered, holds  true for group as
>well as individual (more so in some cases). This ruling  does not forbid use
>of consorts arms, it just does not allow new registrations. It is totally
>valid for any Principality or Kingdom to display consorts' arms without
>registration - and Crown Prince and Princess  arms with period cadency steps
>(labels, mostly) to show the 'son and heir'  status. They just won't be
>registered any more. No one is taking anything  away - they can still be
>used in whatever fashion the individual groups  want, they just won't be
>added to the copious paperwork already in existence. It is actually a
>freeing up of time and space - the Kingdom  Heralds won't have to try and
>poll a populace for consent,  which can be a very daunting task, and the
>Majesties and Highnesses can  display the arms in  whatever fashion and
>medium they wish.
>
>Mistress Shauna of Carrick Point
>Laurel Queen of Arms