[ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary

[kevinkeary at aol.com]

I know they are separate issues and separate proposals, but the two 
issues in this request for commentary ARE related by what Robin points 
out as the single argument in favor of thsi requirement: A laurel 
wreath marks a device as territorial arms. If members of the Order of 
the Laurel are permitted to include a laurel wreath in their arms -- 
and there's no logical reason for denying them this given the fact that 
the other peerages and nobility can use THEIR symbols of rank -- then 
that utility is gone anyway. If you see a device you are unfamiliar 
with that includes a laurel wreath, it might be territorial arms OR 
those of a Laurel peer.

Kevin
Northkeep

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net>
To: Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc. 
<heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:04 am
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary]


Tostig asked: 
 
> Not being a member of the CoA, can anyone provide a summary 
> of the argument(s) in favor of eliminating the Laurel Wreath from > 
Territorial Arms? 
 
Well, I'm not a member of the College of Arms, either, but the basic 
argument is fairly straightforward: 
 
Requiring a Laurel wreath is a non-heraldic, non-historical, 
non-authentic bureaucratic requirement that usually forces more complex 
(and therefore worse) heraldry. It makes it harder for new groups to 
design20armory, and harder for people to create banners and other 
heraldic bearings. 
 
It is, in every relevant way, a violation of the College's charge to 
encourage good, authentic armory. 
 
English baronies don't have to use Lions. French shires don't have to 
use fleurs-de-lys. Castilian cities don't have to use castles. 
 
It doesn't serve the people, or the branches, or the CoA, or the 
corporation, in any relevant way. 
 
Sometimes we allow non-period options, as in the Mundane Name 
Allowance, to serve the people of the SCA. Sometimes we require 
non-period restrictions, like unique names, for bureaucratic 
simplicity. But there's no reason to force a non-period restriction 
that gets in people's way, makes good heraldry *harder* to design, and 
serves no actual purpose. 
 
The only argument in favor of requiring a Laurel wreath is that it 
marks our branches as SCA branches. That's true. "Look --bad, overly 
complex, non-period heraldry -- it must be the SCA!" 
 
I'm all in favor of striking down this useless holdover rule from the 
1960s, when the SCA registered Elvish names and stars as place-names. 
 
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin  
_______________________________________________ 
Heralds mailing list 
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org 
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org