[ANSTHRLD] Chronological list of groups

[Tim McDaniel]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Daniel replied to me:
>
>>> You believe that if Corpora doesn't tell us how branches have to
>>> march, then we should attempt to figure out what it would have
>>> said if it did.
>>
>> That is not my belief. ...
>> I think that a not implausible case can be made that Corpora did
>> tell us, by a reasonable reading of "alike in status" and "lateral
>> transfer", with an analogy with the peerages.  Certainly not a
>> rip-my-arm-off-if-I'm-wrong line of reasoning by any means!  But I
>> think it at least arguable and not implausible.
>
> What is the significant difference between this and attempting to
> figure out what it would have said if it did?

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).

> "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.  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.

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.

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)?

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.

(Given that the Board reversed Laurel for lack of jurisdiction in the
plain-circlet case, yeah, you have to establish Laurel's jurisdiction
first.)

>> If my interpretation be correct, baronies and provinces would
>> simply have to be considered by a rule that takes no account of the
>> difference.
>
> If your interpretation is correct, then the following lines from
> Corpora are deliberately misleading: "[Kingdoms] may also impose
> additional rules and requirements for branches, offices, and awards
> within their jurisdiction, but may not reduce or waive any specified
> requirement contained at a higher level in the Precedence of Law."

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.

> 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?  If
you think it means "have the same requirements or powers except as
stated": I say not, because the Corpora powers and requirements are
enumerated completely right there, and it's not necessarily so
(witnesseth Ansteorran kingdom law).

Danielis Lindonium
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com