MAIL ME my password.
| Sub Status
Laurel LoPaD dated 2018-06-16
To all the College of Arms and all others who may read this missive, from Juliana Laurel, Alys Pelican, and Cormac Wreath, greetings.
This letter contains the issues raised in the April 2018 LoAR for CoA discussion. The text in this letter is copied verbatim from that LoAR; it is provided here for convenience. As with a June LoI, these matters are currently scheduled for the Pelican and Wreath meetings in September 2018. Original commentary, responses, and rebuttals to commentary must be entered into OSCAR no later than Friday, August 31, 2018.
1: Kristyan Applegate - New Badge
OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in August of 2008, via Northshield.
Argent semy of crows contourny sable
This badge potentially conflicts with the device of Raven Mayne, Argent semy of ravens volant sable. There is at least a DC between close and volant per SENA Appendix L. However, volant is not listed in A5E5a as a posture for birds that can be considered for substantial change in posture. This badge is pended for discussion on whether volant should be considered within A5E5a, either within one of the existing categories or as a separate category of its own.
This was item 4 on the Northshield letter of January 31, 2018. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=82740)
2: Marianne Freidis - New Device
OSCAR finds the name on the Caid LoI of October 30, 2017 as submitted.
Paly Or and gules, a sea-dragon sable
This was an appeal of a kingdom return for conflict with Eric de Dragonslaire's device, (Fieldless) A dragon salient sable breathing flames gules. Precedent grants no difference between a dragon, a wyvern, or a sea-dragon. The submitter argued that conflict is not transitive, that is if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C, it is not required that A must conflict with C. The submitter also argued that "To rule that a sea-lion differs from a lion, and a sea-griffin differs from a griffin, and a sea-horse differs from a horse, and every other form of sea-X differs from X -- but a sea-dragon gets no difference from a dragon -- is inconsistent and contradictory. The 1996 ruling should be overturned, and a DC be granted between a sea-dragon and a dragon, just as with every other heraldic sea-monster."
On the first point the submitter is correct, conflict is not necessarily transitive. However, we currently treat a wyvern and a dragon as comparable charges worth no DC, and conflict with a wyvern is also a conflict with a dragon. On the second point, the fact that a sea-dragon is granted no difference from a dragon is not "inconsistent and contradictory". It follows from the fact that a dragon and a wyvern are considered virtually identical charges, with the quadrupedal dragon being a Tudor variant of the two-legged variety, which was also blazoned "dragon" in period. As a charge blazoned as a dragon can (currently) be depicted as a wyvern, and there is no difference between a wyvern and a sea-wyvern (or sea-dragon), there can be no difference granted between a dragon and a sea-dragon.
However, the SCA has a long tradition of telling people to register what they use and use what they register. We consistently blazon the difference between a dragon and a wyvern, something not necessarily true of period heralds. The charge we in the SCA call a wyvern is a long-tailed, winged biped that functions like other winged bipeds (birds, reremice, frauenadlers) for things like posture. The charge we in the SCA call a dragon is a winged quadruped that functions like other quadrupeds. While it's been long-standing policy that these charges have no difference between them, the recent ruling on quadrupeds affronty draws a stark contrast between dragons (which can no longer be depicted as displayed) and wyverns (which have at least two documented examples of the displayed posture applied to wyverns from Guillim). It becomes difficult, therefore, to continue saying that there's no difference between the two charges. We are therefore pending this to discuss whether or not we should continue to treat dragons and wyverns as interchangeable charges. If they are not interchangeable, then there would be a DC between a dragon and a wyvern (or sea-dragon or sea-wyvern).
This was item 14 on the Caid letter of January 31, 2018. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=82902)
3: Maximillian Elgin - New Household Name
OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in August of 2011, via the East.
Black Sheep House of the East
The submitter's previous household name submission, Black Sheep House was returned on the June 2016 Letter of Acceptances and Returns (R-East) for conflict with the registered Blak Shepe Pursuivant. These names conflicted because the substantive elements were the identical in sound. This resubmission adds the phrase of the East in an effort to avoid the conflict.
Questions were raised in commentary whether adding a locative to a household name based on an English inn-sign was a period pattern. Heralds at the Pelican decision meetings found multiple examples of inn names following this pattern, including Anker in East Smithfield, the syne of the Angell in Chepe, the Angel Taverne at Tower Hill, the Ship Taverne at Waping Wall, and the Bare Taverne in Greenwich. Based on these examples, the submitted name reasonably follows a period pattern and can be registered.
Further, the addition of of the East changes the substantive element of the household name under NPN3C of SENA, bringing it clear of the registered Blak Shepe Pursuivant.
Unfortunately, adding the phrase of the East creates another problem that may require the return of the name. As stated in NPN3D of SENA, "[n]on-personal names may not unmistakably imply ownership by or affiliation with any name we protect." NPN3D then includes the following example:
For example, Company of the Blue Shield of Caid as a household name submission from an individual unmistakably implies ownership by the Kingdom of Caid, while Company of the Blue Shield does not.
The plain language of NPN3D would seem to preclude this household name. However, unlike the phrase of Caid, which can only refer to the SCA's Kingdom of Caid, the phrase of the East could be a lingua Anglica form of the attested Middle English byname del Est, which Bardsley s.n. East glosses as referring to someone from the east side of a town or village. Equally, the argument can be made that Black Sheep House of the East does not refer to the SCA's Kingdom of the East but to a tavern located on the east side of a town or village.
As this issue was not discussed in commentary, we are pending this name for further discussion of whether of the East constitutes an unmistakable reference to the Kingdom of the East and whether this household name can or should be registered under NPN3D.
This was item 21 on the East letter of January 31, 2018. (http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=83182)
Pray know that I remain,
Juliana de Luna
Laurel Queen of Arms
OSCAR counts 1 Household Name, 1 Device and 1 Badge. There are a total of 3 items submitted on this letter.
| Sub Status