[ANSTHRLD] Policy question about registering a household name.

Britt tierna.britt at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 11:15:59 PDT 2007


On 6/15/07, Luciana Caterina di Borghese <dolce.luce at gmail.com> wrote:
> No offense taken, and you are absolutely correct in your association! Thus
> explaining my concern. :)
>
> Thank you for asking so nicely
> Luciana
>
>
> On 6/15/07, Joseph Percer <jpercer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have to ask... Does this have anything to do with Monty Python and the
> > Quest for the Holy Grail? Think Zoot, Naughty Zoot and the Grail beacon?
> >
> > Jayme

Then your problem isn't protection, it's obtrusive modernity.

[(Fieldless) A hand apaumy argent charged with the letters 'He' gules.]
This violates RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, and in specific
VIII.4.b, Modern Insignia: "Overt allusions to modern insignia,
trademarks, or common designs may not be registered." RfS VIII.4
states that "'modern' is defined as anything outside the period of the
Society." While the use of letters and words is found in period
armory, most if not all of the period examples we have found use the
same case of letter for all the letters on a given design. The use of
an uppercase 'H' with a lowercase 'e' is therefore jarring, and causes
anyone familiar with modern chemical symbols to think of the element
helium, whose symbol is indeed "He". Helium was discovered and named
in the 19th century, well out of the period of the Society. [Robin
Gallowglass, 06/04, R-East]

[Porsche Audi] Lord Crescent is correct when he states that there is
no Rule explicitly banning intrusively modern names. Nonetheless,
intrusive modernity is given as a reason for armorial return
(VIII.4.b); it is given as a reason for not accepting mundane names,
even under the Mundane Name Allowance (II.4); we may reasonably infer
that intrusive modernity is unacceptable.

If a specific Rule must be cited, Rule I.1 requires all names to be
"compatible with the period and domain of the Society"; moreover, even
names formed from period elements can be returned if "they have been
specifically declared incompatible by these rules, Laurel precedent,
or a policy statement from the Board of Directors." Intrusive
modernity has been declared sufficient reason for return in the past:
Joe Westermark, the Artemisian Tank Corps, Rolling Thunder, and the
Societas Historum Mortum have all been returned for modernity. The
precedent is well-established, and therefore, by I.1 may be cited as
reason for return.

The fact that this is a "joke name" is not, in and of itself, a
problem. The College has registered a number of names, perfectly
period in formation, that embodied humor: Drew Steele, Miles Long, and
John of Somme Whyre spring to mind as examples. They may elicit
chuckles (or groans) from the listener, but no more. Intrusively
modern names grab the listener by the scruff of the neck and haul him,
will he or nill he, back into the 20th Century. A name that, by its
very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a name we should
register. (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)

So much will be up to whether the commenters think it's obtrusively
modern and infringing on Monty Python.  There might be conflict:

[House White Hart] The household name is in conflict with the inn of
White Hart. While none of the real-world inns of that name is
important enough to protect under our current rules, the one featured
in Arthur C. Clarke's Tales from the White Hart is. [Gisla Rodumna,
11/00, R-An Tir]

And finally, 'Minstrels' hasn't been registered as a household
designator since 1983.  It might be unviable in that role.

I'd call this an 'inform the submitters and see if they want to take
the chance' sort of thing.

- Teceangl



More information about the Heralds mailing list