[ANSTHRLD] The name Rhiannon

[kobrien at texas.net]

Quoting Jacquie Ziegler <shauna at bresnan.net>:

> Constance Elizabeth Campbell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just a quick question.  I will admit that I've skimmed through this
> message
> > thread and haven't read it thouroughly.
> > However, I was going through the LOAR to see if they had posted
> January's
> > minutes (not yet, darn it.. :(  *sniff sniff*  I want to change my
> name..
> > but I digress..*grin*)
> >
> > In the November Minutes there is a member from the West whose name was
> > accepted by Laurel.
> >  "*Rhiannon verch Madyn. *Name change from holding name Rhiannon of
> Betony
> > Wood.
> >
> > *Rhiannon* is an SCA-compatible Welsh name."
> > Doesn't this mean that it is acceptable by laurel?  Just curious, not
> > meaning to cause trouble.
> >
> > Constance
> Yes, that is what 'SCA-compatible' means - it is acceptable by Laurel IF 
> the rest of the
> name doesn't have any weirdnesses. The name that was being discussed had 
> two weirdnesses,
> one for SCA-compatible and one for mixing two languages that had been 
> previously ruled
> as being allowable with a weirdness - thus, two weirdnesses and not 
> registerable. You can have
> one or the other, but not both.
> 
> This is not the only reason a name may be returned, but it is definitely 
> one to watch out for.


It occured to me that it may be worth a basic description of the "SCA-
compatible" category for newer folks.

I found the following precedent which does a good job of going over "SCA-
Compatible" as it applies to an individual name element (such as Rhiannon, in 
this case):

--------------

This month's submission of the name Rhonwen Briana MacLean (Atlantia) raised 
in almost its purest form the question of just what is meant by `SCA-
compatibility' of a name. (Ceridwen Rhiannon MacLean might have posed the 
question a little more bluntly.) Does `SCA-compatibility' give a name the 
same status as an attested period name, or does it represent a kind of second-
class onomastic citizenship? 

In actual usage the term SCA-compatible, when applied to a name, appears to 
mean `not used by human beings in period (so far as we know), but too popular 
in the SCA to be disallowed'. Thus, use of one of these names is (on the best 
available evidence) a non-period practice. We allow many practices that were 
non-existent or nearly so in period, both in our names and in our armory, but 
in general we stigmatize them as `weirdnesses' and do not allow too many of 
them to be combined in a single name or armory. They are `compatible' in the 
sense that they are not completely disallowed, but they are still not 
considered fully acceptable. It is consistent with this approach to allow a 
name to include a single `SCA-compatible' element but no more; each such 
element added to a name further removes it from the realm of authentic period 
practice. Indeed, we see no reason to distinguish between `SCA-compatible' 
names and other non-period names permitted under the provisions of RfS II.4 
(Legal Names): both are allowed as concessions to modern sensibilities 
despite their inauthentic nature. 

Beginning with the 5/96 meeting, therefore, use of two individually 
permissible non-period elements in a single name will be considered two 
`weirdnesses' and will be grounds for return. Such elements include non-
period names allowed under the Legal Name Allowance as well as those names, 
apparently not used by human beings in period, that have been declared `SCA-
compatible', e.g., Briana, Ceridwen (in several variants), 
Gwendolen/Guendolen, R(h)onwen, and Rowena. (Talan Gwynek, Cover Letter to 
the January 1996 LoAR, pp. 3-4)

--------------

Note: a clarification of the Legal Name Allowance was put in a cover letter a 
couple of years ago and we had a discussion of it on this list in the last 
year (I think), so that should be easily accessible in the list archives.

Hope this helps,

Mari