[NR] NORTHERN REGIONALNAMING a list for heralds and timeline

[Jennifer Smith]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Marc Carlson <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com>wrote:

> So, just to be clear, under SCA rules, it is impossible for any place that
> may have existed during period, to be acknowledged in a modern SCA name,
> even if it's appropriate for the modern place.  Ok, I'll have to add that to
> my list of "Why the SCA is not a Living History organization."


This is where I remind people that I am *not* a name herald. :)  The
following rulings may be of use:

July 2001, Drachenwald:
*Torna, Canton of. *Branch name [...] (accepted)

The name is a 14th century form of the name of the real-world town within
the Canton. Submitting it for the name of the canton raises the question of
how we treat period forms of real-world names of SCA branches.

All in all, we can see three different reasons to return a name of this
sort. First, of course, the submitted name may be well enough known to be
protected under section III.A.5 of the Administrative Handbook. Thus, for
instance, we would not register *Birka*, either to a group forming near the
old site in Sweden or to anyone else. The submitted name does not appear in
general encyclopaedias, like the *Encyclopaedia Britannica*, so by current
practice it is not important enough to protect.

Second, the submitted name may be presumptuous. Granted, section VI.3 of the
Rules for Submissions addresses only names *that unmistakably imply identity
with or close relationship to a protected person or literary character*.
However, it seems appropriate to apply similar standards to personal and
non-personal names, and Section VI.4 gives us enough discretion to do so. We
would, therefore, return names that unmistakably imply identity with a
protected place: for instance, while *Londinium* does not have its own
article in the *Encyclopaedia Britannica*, *London* is protected and so
registering the Roman name for the city would be presumptuous. In the
current case, the modern town does not have its own entry in *Britannica* and
the submission is thus clear on this count as well.

Third, the name may run afoul of section III.A.9 [sic, now III.A.10] of the
Administrative Handbook: *No name or device will be registered to a
submitter if it is identical to a name or device used by the submitter for
purposes of identification outside of a Society context.* Thus, in the
present case, we would not have registered *Tornio* or *Torneå*, those being
the currently used names for the town. The submitted name differs from each
of these by one syllable, and that is generally considered sufficient
difference for personal names. Again, we see no point in treating place
names differently.


March 2003, An Tir:

*North, Principality of the. *Branch name change from Tir Rígh, Principality
of. (returned)

This name conflicts with *the North*, which has its own entry in the
Encyclopedia Britannica (s.n. North, the) and which is defined as the part
of the United States of America that opposed the Confederacy in the American
Civil War. The Administrative Handbook section III.A.5, "Names of
Significant Geographical Locations Outside the Society", states in part,
"Generic descriptive names outside the Society will not be protected except
where the name is immediately associated with a single significant
location." That *the North* is listed as a header in a general encyclopedia
and is identified with the territory that formed one half of the American
Civil War demonstrates that *the North* is "immediately associated with a
single significant location" as required by section III.A.5 cited above.
Therefore, this submission conflicts with the protected name *the North* and,
so, is not registerable.

Additionally, no documentation was presented and none was found that *the
North* is plausible as a period placename (as opposed to a simple direction,
which could be part of - or an element in - a compound placename) as
required by RfS III.2.b.i. Lacking such evidence, this name is not
registerable.

 December 2004, East:
*Wyndhame, Shire of. *Acceptance of branch name transfer from Wyndhame,
Shire of [...] (returned)

This group is located in the county of *Wyndham*, VT. For purpose of
registration, this is identical to the name being transfered here *Wyndhame,
Canton of*. According to precedent:

the name may run afoul of section III.A.9 of the Administrative Handbook: *No
name or device will be registered to a submitter if it is identical to a
name or device used by the submitter for purposes of identification outside
of a Society context.* Thus, in the present case, we would not have
registered *Tornio* or *Torneå*, those being the currently used names for
the town. The submitted name differs from each of these by one syllable, and
that is generally considered sufficient difference for personal names.
Again, we see no point in treating place names differently. [Torna, Canton
of, 06/01, A-Drachenwald]

There is no difference in sound and there is only a difference of a single
letter here, the silent -e at the end of the county name.
June 2009, Atlantia

*Hidden Mountain, Barony of. *Order name Order of the Green Mountain [...]
(returned)

This is returned for conflict with the Green Mountains, in Vermont, and the
American Revolutionary regiment that took their name from the mountains,
the *Green Mountain Boys*. Both have articles in the current*Encyclopedia
Britannica* on-line, and the Green Mountain Boys' capturing of Fort
Ticonderoga was an important event in the early part of the war. Both
the *Green
Mountains* and the *Green Mountain Boys* are important enough to protect
from conflict per Admin Handbook III.A.5 Names of Significant Geographical
Locations Outside of the Society and III.A.9 Other Significant Names Outside
the Society.


So, in summary... it *may* be doable, but I wouldn't count on it. If there
were multiple places named that in period, that would certainly help matters
a great deal, but with it being pretty much just the one place that I know
of...


-Emma