[ANSTHRLD] Philospohy of Corpora and Kingdom choice [was: that silly argument betwen Robin and Daniel]

[Jay Rudin]

This will be my last comment on this topic, which has ceased to be a heraldic one, and become philosophical and political.  I'm only writing to make an apology about a misunderstanding, and to try to point out what the philosophical differences are.
  
>My suggestion and belief that there is evidence and that the
>preponderance means such-and-so, versus an imputation that I know that
>it says nothing on the subject and that I'm trying to make something
>up (so I must be lying when I say that I believe it does).

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.  I certainly never said or implied that I thought you were making something up or lying.  I have no belief that you are doing something immoral.

It still feels like trying to find a ruling in Corpora on where provinces march after finding no words in Corpora telling you where provinces march.  But I absolutely believe that you are doing so in good faith.

>> "A not implausible case", "by a reasonable reading", "with an
>> analogy" that is "at least arguable and not implausible" does not
>> overrule the word of the Crown.  Only Corpora does.

>Unfortunately, Corpora often needs Talmudic interpretation. 

By contrast, ignoring Corpora where it doesn't speak needs no more than setting it down after failing to find a ruling.  As I said earlier, "It's much more fundamental than that.  We differ on whether to interpret it at all.  I cannot see any justification for 'interpreting' it to say something it doesn't say, and then giving that interpretation, which is not in Corpora, precedence over the choice of the kingdom."

More fundamentally, while Corpora overrules the Crown's choice, "a not implausible case", "by a reasonable reading", "with an analogy" that is "at least arguable and not implausible" does not.

Also, neither you nor I have any right to "interpret" Corpora beyond the unambiguous.  Corpora 1.C "[The Board] is the final arbiter of the interpretations of these rules as made by the officers of the Society."  Thus there are two conditions in which the Crown's decision will be overruled:
1. It is in conflict with clear, unambiguous words from Corpora that do not require interpretation , or
2. The Board of Directors say that it does.

> Yes, of
>course there are clear things in it.  I don't seem to hit those that
>often in practice.  Too often, I've wanted to answer a question from
>Corpora and realized that it's unclear.  Unfortunately, while it's
>happened enough that I remember being frustrated, I haven't written
>down examples.

I think this is the real philosophical issue between us.  You wrote that you've "wanted to answer a question from Corpora".  I actively don't.  I want to find an answer in Ansteorran law and custom, and will do so unless Corpora forces an answer on us.  Therefore where the wording of Corpora does not provide a clear answer, you are "frustrated" and I am relieved.

>To digress, the ones that I hit recently were in a discussion of
>armigerous status.  I asserted that, once you've gotten an armigerous
>award, you are armigerous; if you have a grant- or patent-bearing
>award, a further naked Grant of Arms would have no effect.  But
>thinking about it more, I realized that Corpora doesn't say that, I
>don't know of any Laurel rulings on the subject, and I can't point to
>anything written.

By contrast, I would start with kingdom law, not Corpora.
"Awards bearing the right to bear arms in the Kingdom of Ansteorra shall be enumerated
as the following:
1. The Award of Arms
2. The Award of the Sable Thistle of Ansteorra
3. The Award of the Sable Crane of Ansteorra"
etc.

>I then considered a test case.  Suppose I resign my Award of Arms, my
>first armigerous award.  (I would merely have to mail five letters.)
>Do I then have an award of arms on account of later AoA-level awards?
>If not, am I barred from ever receiving one again (as asserted in the
>previous paragraph)?

Kingdom law is clear.  You have a Sable Thistle and a Sable Crane; you are armigerous.  That ruling stands until and unless a clear, unambiguous corporate ruling voids it.

>I then realized that it's not even clear that Laurel or any herald has
>jurisdiction.  You have to argue that in Corpora's "Laurel is
>responsible ... for establishing rules and making determinations
>regarding ... royal and noble titles", that "noble" (not defined in
>Corpora) has a different meaning than in Ansteorran kingdom law and
>most other modern uses of the term in the SCA.  And that "titles"
>includes styles, ranks, estates, and degrees, but that seems firmer.
>
>OR you have to argue that a Corpora-sanctioned award structure implies
>that there must be a way to determine whether someone has an award,
>that it's implicit in the title "herald", and that nobody else is
>given a power anything like that.

Or that "Kingdoms may follow custom or make law in areas where these policies are silent, as long as they remain consistent with the general approach embodied therein."

Until kingdom law is shown to be inconsistent with the general approach in Corpora, it stands.

>Except that (as I suggest) there *is* a specified requirement.  You
>can't read any particular sentence of any law in complete isolation
>from the rest.

But having read the law, and found no word about where provinces march, and having found specific word about where peerage orders relative to each other, it's just as easy to conclude they wanted to define that peers march together, but did not feel the need to define which branches march together.

>> At no point does Corpora state or imply that the equality of status
>> at the corporate level has any effect on the re-enactment level

>What meaning does "status" have outside the re-enactment level?  

Legal status, Daniel.  Primarily, it means that they are similar enough in corporate requirements that they can be discussed in parallel in the same section.  It means that provinces and baronies can be supersets of local branches if allowed by kingdom law and custom, and other local branches can't.  Provinces and baronies on the east coast are basically small regions.  In any event, Corpora states than kingdom law can add further to the rules on branches, and nowhere does it limit those additions to parallel requirements for branches "alike in status".  Nowhere.

As I said, this is a philosophical and political issue, not a heraldic one.  You see Corpora as the rules of the game we play, and actively seek a ruling therefrom.  I see Corpora as a framework for the structure of our activities, within which we build a kingdom game, and wherever Corpora doesn't clearly rule, we are free to make our own decisions.  Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind at this point.  It will surprise nobody to learn that you are a liberal and I'm a conservative.

Thus you, desiring a corporate ruling, require Talmudic interpretation.  I, actively preferring kingdom rule, gleefully skip away if Corpora didn't force a ruling. 

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com