[ANSTHRLD] conflict check please

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Lou Burgin <lburgin at gt.rr.com> wrote:
> Could you guys please double check me on this one. My blazon would
> be: vert two wedding rings conjoined or within five cinquefoils in
> annulo argent.
...
> <http://sca.bmhanson.net/images/Beth%2527s%20device.jpg>

I'd like to discuss some style issues first.

Among the requirements of the Rules for Submission are RfS VII.7:

    a.  Identification Requirement - Elements must be recognizable
        solely from their appearance.

        Any charge, line of partition, or field treatment used in
        Society armory must be identifiable, in and of itself, without
        labels or excessive explanation.  Elements not used in period
        armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they are
        readily distinguishable from elements that are already in
        use. ...

    b.  Reconstruction Requirement - Elements must be reconstructible
        in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.

        Any element used in Society armory must be describable in
        standard heraldic terms so that a competent heraldic artist
        can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon.  Elements
        that cannot be described in such a way that the depiction of
        the armory will remain consistent may not be used, even if
        they are identifiable design motifs that were used before
        1600.  For example, the Tree of Life occurs as a decorative
        element in period and is readily identifiable as such, but it
        may not be used in armory since it cannot be defined in a
        manner that guarantees its consistent depiction.

That is, RfS VII.7.a: can go from picture to blazon
         RfS VII.7.b: can go from blazon  to picture

"Wedding ring" doesn't have any defined common representation; for
example, there's been celebrity wedding rings with rocks big enough to
choke a camel.  The SCA blazon term for a ring is "finger ring" or
"gemmed ring" (per the Pic Dic), and it has a gem to distinguish it
from an annulet.  An annulet is a disk with a disk-shaped hole in the
center, like a perfect O.  Thing is, they're substantially wider and
more uniform than the ones in the artwork that Alasdair provided.  So
I don't know a good way to blazon this particular art in a way that a
scribe can reproduce it.  We might blazon it like "gemless plain
finger rings", but that's not a term of blazon and it's awkward
(difficulty in blazon tends to be an indication of non-period style).
Or draw them as annulets, but you lose the symbolism ...


I would also like to make a pure style note, if I may.  That is,
there's registration requirements, but there are styles that are
registerable but far from period style.  I like to give guidance about
period design in case you can find something that you're just as happy
with but is much closer to period style.  So let me tap-dance into the
minefield.

I looked at the design (after the blazon, though) and thought that it
was celebrating a wedding, and there's the bouquets, and the grass
where the ceremony was held ... It would make fine decoration on a
manuscript, and a wonderful design for wedding decoration ... but
period armory generally didn't get so very VERY symbolic (except for
attributed arms to famous people and some special cases).  And, um, I
don't want to be offensively cynical, but it would be a drag if a few
years from now your AoA and banners all reminded you of your former
marriage ...  Even Miss Manners notes that traditional etiquette says
that silverware given as wedding presents is marked with the bride's
*maiden* initials.

In period, arms were inherited.  (Miss Manners notes the old English
insult "They're the sort of people who buy their silverware."  As
opposed to inheriting it, you see, like decent people.  Anyway.)
Being inherited, they symbolized a lineage of descent.  Not usually
"represented" in the sense of bar-coding the last name -- just that
everyone knew that "Argent, two chevron gules" were the Widdleshams of
Devonshire, or whatever.  Or people might assume arms themselves, in
which case they were for the person.

I would suggest that you design period-style arms for *you*.
For example, cinquefoils are an excellent period charge and
under-appreciated in the SCA: that could be a good starting point.
Green wasn't used much at all in period, but there are examples and
it's certainly registerable.  Et cetera.

The period way of representing marriage: putting your arms on a shield
next to your spouse's.  And, um, that's more personalized to the
spouse -- captious critics might note that using just a ring for the
spouse is like always calling them "honey" instead of their own name.

Denyel de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com