Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [albanach] Scottish Titles (was: Antique Maps)

Expand Messages
  • Matt Newsome
    ... Well, instead of trying to guess what I meant, let me just restate it better. The statement made was that the name was returned for a silly reason. Many
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1, 1945
      "Sharon L. Krossa" wrote:

      > Perhaps what you mean to say is not that
      > "Presumption of rank isn't
      > silliness at all" but "Presumption of rank is
      > prohibited by CoA
      > registration rules, silly or not". The two are
      > not equivalent
      > statements. Something can by silliness _and_
      > still be a rule. (Your
      > later replies have all concentrated on it
      > being a rule and so
      > something one has to deal with regardless of
      > one's opinion of it, so
      > I am assuming you are indicating that is what
      > you meant to say in the
      > first place, even though obviously that is not
      > what you said
      > originally ;-)
      >

      Well, instead of trying to guess what I meant,
      let me just restate it better. The statement
      made was that the name was returned for a silly
      reason. Many people already have the fear that
      the heralds return things for more or less
      random reasons (you don't know how many people I
      talk to at consult tables are upset for this
      very reason), and heraldic PR is something that
      many of us are working on. We need to let
      people know why it is we do what we do. So, in
      the case of this particular name, it was
      obviously returned because it violated one of
      the rules of submission. (I'm saying this based
      on what I know from the discussion here, I was
      not one of the consulting heralds involved). To
      be returned because it violated a rule of
      submission is not silly. You may or may not
      think the rule itself is silly. But, as you
      have alluded to yourself, if you want to
      register your name or device in the SCA, you
      have to follow the rules of the College of
      Heralds. And the rules, whether you agree with
      them or not, are there for a reason. I think if
      more people in the SCA were aware of the rules,
      and the reasons for them, there would be less
      problems from a customer service perspective
      with the heralds.

      I am fairly sure that Margaret was not meaning
      to malign the heralds when she made her comment,
      and I am fairly sure that she knew about the
      Presumption of Rank rule, and why this
      particular name violated it. I was just taking
      the opportunity to try and educate the list at
      large about this particular aspect of the
      submission process.


      > My point is that it is okay not to agree with
      > the CoA rules -- even
      > though those are the rules you must abide by
      > if you want a name
      > registered. The CoA rules are not handed down
      > from the heavens. And
      > people disagree with them for different
      > reasons. Most of what I think
      > is silly has to do with the rules that allow
      > inauthentic names and
      > especially the rules that forbid various
      > authentic names -- just as
      > generally I think various aspects of SCA
      > culture that make authentic
      > personas and play more difficult are silly,
      > etc.
      >

      Sure, you are welcome to disagree with them. In
      fact, if you think you disagree for legitimate
      reasons, bring it up with the CoH! Many of the
      rules for submissions have changed in the
      decades that the CoH has been around, mostly for
      reason of greater authenticity. It's why, if
      you see someone with a registered name from
      Tolkien, you know he registered it a long time
      ago. ;-)


      > No, I don't think a major reform of the SCA
      > ranking system needs to
      > take place before the CoA name rules can be
      > modified. They could
      > modify the rules to only forbid claiming SCA
      > rank without changing
      > the system of SCA rank. (The current rules,
      > after all, aren't mainly
      > about presuming SCA rank, but rather mundane
      > rank.) All that needs to
      > change is sufficient people's attitudes about
      > the relationship of the
      > SCA to the real world -- that is, to stop
      > worrying about implied real
      > world rank that doesn't imply SCA rank and to
      > start worrying more
      > about not getting in the way of authentic
      > recreations of medieval
      > noble society. Getting over the unnatural
      > phobia of land holding
      > would also help (presumed to be noble but
      > forbidden to claim to hold
      > land is such an oxymoron ;-)
      >

      I agree with you that all of this represents a
      very un-medieval practice. But just to play
      devil's advocate, the fact that the SCA itself
      has landed and unlanded nobility only helps to
      reenforce this concept. We hold our landed
      Baron in a different regard to a court Baron.
      What happens when the Baron of Nottinghill Coil
      meets the Baron of Sussex? We don't want
      someone who does not hold a certain position in
      our Society to confuse things by claiming an
      equialent position for their persona. I know
      you can argue that this isn't really a big
      issue, people will know the difference. But the
      fact that we want to protect *our* landed
      nobility's status is an important consideration
      for the powers that be. This is why Richard of
      Durham, when he recieves his AoA, can be Lord
      Richard, or Lord Richard of Durham, but not Lord
      Durham, which would be a very period way to
      style himself.

      I like to point out that in reality, a medieval
      Lord would outrank a lowly knight, and would
      most likely have several knights serving him.
      Try telling that to our SCA knights who
      represent one of the highest ranks in the SCA,
      over the lowly Lords and Ladies, the first rank
      attainted by many.
      Aye,
      Eogan

      --
      Matthew A. C. Newsome
      Curator of the Scottish Tartans Museum
      Clan MacQuarrie
      -
      SCA: Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn
      Sacred Stone Persuivant
      -
      WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
      -
      1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of
      CHOICE
    • Julie Stackable
      OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH Sharon, quoth Margaret, still sopping saliva off the keyboard. I LOOOOOOOOOVE maps anyway - thank you for that link. I m not quite yet ready to
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 29, 1947
        OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH Sharon, quoth Margaret, still
        sopping saliva off the keyboard. I LOOOOOOOOOVE
        maps anyway - thank you for that link. I'm not
        quite yet ready to abandon Rowanside yet, but
        will most likely come to terms with it soon. The
        SCA heralds wouldn't let my hubby be 'Simon
        Montgomerie of Ardrossan' for fear of presumption
        of rank or some silliness (I'm a herald - I say
        that with all respect) because Ardrossan was one
        of the Baronies belonging to the Montgomeries so
        we've been trying to come up with a nearby
        placename for him to affix instead (that he's
        agreeable to...). Rowan is one of our favorites -
        if my son had been a girl, he was going to be a
        Rowan...So, still looking, still researching,
        gonna have a stiff drink and go back to the
        mapsite and try not to lick the monitor....(just
        kidding).
        Toujours a vos ordres,
        Margaret Hepburn, late of Ardrossan
        >
        > http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/index.html
        >
        > This is an amazing collection of historical
        > maps, fully zoomable and in colour.


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
        http://greetings.yahoo.com
      • Matt Newsome
        ... Presumption of rank isn t silliness at all. Being somebody of somewhere is how a lot of Scottish titles are called. If I wanted to be Eogan
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 30, 1947
          Julie Stackable wrote:

          > The
          > SCA heralds wouldn't let my hubby be 'Simon
          > Montgomerie of Ardrossan' for fear of
          > presumption
          > of rank or some silliness (I'm a herald - I
          > say
          > that with all respect) because Ardrossan was
          > one
          > of the Baronies belonging to the Montgomeries
          > so
          > we've been trying to come up with a nearby
          > placename for him to affix instead (that he's
          > agreeable to...).

          Presumption of rank isn't silliness at all.
          Being "somebody" of "somewhere" is how a lot of
          Scottish titles are called. If I wanted to be
          Eogan MacQuarrie, I could not be Eogan
          MacQuarrie of Ulva. That would make me chief of
          the clan. I also could not be Eogan MacNeill of
          Bara, or Ewan Stewart of Galloway for similar
          reasons.

          Likewise, he would be able to call himself "the
          Montgomery," because this is also the way many
          Scottish titles are styles. There was a person
          a few years back that singed all of her emails
          on the Atlantian mailing list, "the MacNeil of
          Atlantia." This bothered me, because it made it
          sound like she was not only the chief of the
          MacNeils, but that their seat was Atlantia, our
          Kingdom!

          There are two reasons why this is not allowed.
          Number one, we do not presume rank in our SCA
          names. Ranking is earned in our game, so if you
          want to be a baron or a duke, etc., you have to
          go about it in the usual way. You cannot give
          yourself a name (a title, really) that
          presupposes that. Number two, in cases like you
          mention, there might very well be a "Montgomery
          of Ardrossan" still about (I don't know that for
          a fact, I haven't checked). But if there were,
          we would want to make sure you do not claim
          presumptively to be him by use of his title
          (same reason you would not be able to register
          the Montgomery arms as your device).

          If your husband can't find another place name
          that he likes, ask him, why does he need to be
          "of" anywhere? What's wrong with just Simon
          Montgomery? (Unless there was a conflict with
          someone else of that name, and adding a locative
          would fix the conflict).

          Good luck on getting his name passed. I hope he
          ends us with something he likes. (I like the
          name Simon).
          Aye,
          Eogan

          --
          Matthew A. C. Newsome
          Curator of the Scottish Tartans Museum
          Clan MacQuarrie
          -
          SCA: Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn
          Sacred Stone Persuivant
          -
          WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
          -
          1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of
          CHOICE
        • Sharon L. Krossa
          ... Some regard it as silliness -- presumption is a philosophical issue about which reasonable people will disagree. ... But only in the 16th century does the
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 30, 1947
            At 8:44 AM -0500 12/30/01, Matt Newsome wrote:
            >Julie Stackable wrote:
            >
            > > The
            > > SCA heralds wouldn't let my hubby be 'Simon
            > > Montgomerie of Ardrossan' for fear of
            > > presumption
            > > of rank or some silliness (I'm a herald - I
            > > say
            > > that with all respect) because Ardrossan was
            > > one
            > > of the Baronies belonging to the Montgomeries
            > > so
            > > we've been trying to come up with a nearby
            > > placename for him to affix instead (that he's
            > > agreeable to...).
            >
            >Presumption of rank isn't silliness at all.

            Some regard it as silliness -- presumption is a philosophical issue
            about which reasonable people will disagree.

            >Being "somebody" of "somewhere" is how a lot of
            >Scottish titles are called.

            But only in the 16th century does the byname style <Surname of
            Someplace> imply that one owns Someplace. From my perspective -- that
            is, authenticity being my main concern -- that just means to me that
            if you have a 16th century persona, you ought to pick a place that
            you intend to claim to hold if you choose this byname style. Prior to
            around the 16th century, some people held the Someplace in this
            style, and others didn't.

            Remember, in period lots of people who were not peers held land.

            >If I wanted to be
            >Eogan MacQuarrie,

            You would have a non-historical name -- mixing a Gaelic form of a
            given name with a Scots language form of a byname ;-)

            >I could not be Eogan
            >MacQuarrie of Ulva. That would make me chief of
            >the clan.

            Well, actually, since in the Scots language names of Gaels that use
            this style, they seem to have tended to hold or at least be closely
            related to the person who held the Someplace named, even before the
            16th century, it would imply that you or your close relative held the
            territory of Ulva. If the chief of the MacQuarries held Ulva, that is
            where the presumption comes in -- it wouldn't make you chief of the
            clan, it would make you seem to be claiming to be chief of the clan
            or at least closely related to the chief of the clan.

            >I also could not be Eogan MacNeill of
            >Bara, or Ewan Stewart of Galloway for similar
            >reasons.
            >
            >Likewise, he would be able to call himself "the
            >Montgomery," because this is also the way many
            >Scottish titles are styles. There was a person
            >a few years back that singed all of her emails
            >on the Atlantian mailing list, "the MacNeil of
            >Atlantia." This bothered me, because it made it
            >sound like she was not only the chief of the
            >MacNeils, but that their seat was Atlantia, our
            >Kingdom!

            Except, of course, that Highland chiefs don't use "the" -- the <the
            X> style for the head of a family is a Lowland thing, not a Highland
            thing. The chief of the MacDonalds is called <MacDonald>, not <the
            MacDonald> (and even modernly there are still chiefs of Highland
            clans who are irritated by being called <the MacWhoever> instead of
            simply <MacWhoever>). So, in fact, the person signing herself <the
            MacNeil of Atlantia> was not using a style that implied she was the
            chief of the MacNeils of Atlantia, even though many will mistake it
            so.

            Further, it is not clear that the <the X> style was used in period
            exclusively by the head of the family. For example, both King Robert
            I (Bruce) and his younger brother appear styled as <the Bruce> in
            Barbour's late 14th century poem "The Bruce". Use of "the", at least
            in some periods of period, may have simply indicated a prominent
            person of that name. (This is somethign that has yet to be
            investigated fully -- it's a bit of a question mark.)

            Further still, even in times when quite clearly <the X> was used
            exclusively for the head of the name, someone who was <X of Y> would
            _not_ call themselves simply <the X> unless <X of Y> was the head of
            all the entire name of <X>. So, let us say that someone signed
            themselves <the Montgomery of Atlantia> -- this would be implying
            that they were the head of the Montgomery family of Atlantia
            (presumably a cadet branch of the larger Montgomery name), not that
            they were claiming to be head of the entire Montgomery name, even
            less that the primary seat of the head of the entire Montgomery name
            was in Atlantia.

            >There are two reasons why this is not allowed.
            >Number one, we do not presume rank in our SCA
            >names.

            Nonsense -- we presume rank in all sorts of names that are allowed.
            It is just that certain types of presuming rank are not allowed. For
            example, in a 16th century name, using the style <X Y of Z> is
            usually implies that you own land -- something forbidden by SCA
            convention. However, because in earlier centuries the same style does
            not necessarily imply that you own land and because the SCA does not
            consider persona stories but only the actual name, it is allowed.
            Except, of course, if you combine a historical surname with a
            historical territory that noble people of that surname did actually
            hold.

            >Ranking is earned in our game, so if you
            >want to be a baron or a duke, etc., you have to
            >go about it in the usual way. You cannot give
            >yourself a name (a title, really) that
            >presupposes that.

            Actually, in this case I'd call it a name, not a title.

            >Number two, in cases like you
            >mention, there might very well be a "Montgomery
            >of Ardrossan" still about (I don't know that for
            >a fact, I haven't checked). But if there were,
            >we would want to make sure you do not claim
            >presumptively to be him by use of his title

            Why should we care about modern people? Clearly a medieval character
            is not the same as a 21st century anything. The only time the SCA
            considers modern people is for _conflict_, not presumption -- in
            which case the standard is whether they have their own entry in a
            general encyclopedia. (And I think conflict is a very silly
            consideration indeed! ;-)

            Further, an argument can be made that if the given name does not
            match any of the _period_ historical characters, then clearly you are
            not claiming to be any historical peer. You're clearly not claiming
            to be the real person. But unfortunately the issue is presumption,
            not simply conflict, and for this the SCA tends to be picky of not
            _appearing_ to be presumptious, not simply not actually being
            presumptious.

            And in the case of Scotland, this means a wide net that prevents not
            only taking the styles of Earls and such, but of any well known
            land-holding family.

            Personally, I think the SCA rules against seeming to claim land
            holding, etc., are silly. The SCA on the one hand says we're all
            presumed to be noble (if not peers), but on the other hand says you
            can't claim to hold land. That's really unmedieval -- it's not
            historically plausible. One of the major characteristics of the noble
            class in the medieval period is that they tended to hold land.
            Further, there were also various non-nobles who held land.

            But the CoA didn't consult me when setting up their rules -- and even
            if they had, I doubt they would have been persuaded ;-)

            >(same reason you would not be able to register
            >the Montgomery arms as your device).
            >
            >If your husband can't find another place name
            >that he likes, ask him, why does he need to be
            >"of" anywhere? What's wrong with just Simon
            >Montgomery? (Unless there was a conflict with
            >someone else of that name, and adding a locative
            >would fix the conflict).

            Note also that in the 16th century I would expect, unless you are an
            heiress and the land your husband has in his byname is actually your
            land (not his), that you and your husband would not have the same
            someplace in your bynames. That is, if _he_ inherits the land called
            <Someplace>, I would expect you to be <Simon Montgomerie of
            Someplace> and <Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan>, and _not_ to become
            <Margaret Hepburn of Someplace> when you marry him. [I should say
            that further research may change my mind on this, but so far that
            seems to be the way it works.]

            Sharon
            --
            Sharon L. Krossa, krossa@...
          • Matt Newsome
            I guess this is what I get for writing off a quick email in haste. ;-) My main point was, and still is, that in the SCA, when you submit a name, you have to
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 1, 1947
              I guess this is what I get for writing off a
              quick email in haste. ;-) My main point was,
              and still is, that in the SCA, when you submit a
              name, you have to be careful about use of
              presumptive names that claim rank. It seems I
              went a bit agleg in the details, but my main
              point still sticks.

              "Sharon L. Krossa" wrote:

              >
              > >Presumption of rank isn't silliness at all.
              >
              > Some regard it as silliness -- presumption is
              > a philosophical issue
              > about which reasonable people will disagree.
              >

              Well, you may think that the rule of submission
              that (Part VI - Presumptuous Names) that
              prohibits presumption of rank is silliness. But
              the College of Heralds returning a submission
              because it violates a pre-established rule is
              not silly. It is their job to follow the rules
              that are in place, until they are changed. And
              don't say, "Well, the heralds could change the
              rules." I'm a herald. I can't change the
              rules. The process involved in changing the
              rules of submission goes far beyond the
              consulting heralds looking at a submission.
              They are only doing their job.


              > >If I wanted to be
              > >Eogan MacQuarrie,
              >
              > You would have a non-historical name -- mixing
              > a Gaelic form of a
              > given name with a Scots language form of a
              > byname ;-)
              >

              Eogan, of course, speaks fluent Gaelic. His
              21st century counterpart, Matt, does not,
              unfortunately. ;-) Another consequence of a
              hastily typed email. How about we amend that to
              either Eoghan mac Guaire or Ewan M'Goyre.

              Oh and while we are on the subject of Gaelic
              names, do you (or anyone else) know of a
              conveineint source, preferably on line, that
              might show some of the historic changes
              undergone by the Gaelic language at different
              time periods. My main goal in knowing this
              would be to have a resource to point to for when
              people what to know how thier Gaelic name might
              be spelled differently in the 16th century, vs
              the 11th century, vs modern times.


              > If the chief of the MacQuarries held Ulva,
              > that is
              > where the presumption comes in -- it wouldn't
              > make you chief of the
              > clan, it would make you seem to be claiming to
              > be chief of the clan
              > or at least closely related to the chief of
              > the clan.
              >

              And that is exactly what the SCA College of
              Heralds wants to avoid, hence the rule. The
              rule is not only against explicit presumptive
              names, but also implicit ones.

              There are four types of names that are
              considered Presumptive. Names claiming rank,
              names claiming powers, names claiming specifc
              relationship, and other miscellaneous. The
              pertinant section under names claiming rank is:

              "1. Names Claiming Rank. – Names containing
              titles, territorial claims, or allusions to rank
              are considered presumptuous.
              Titles like Earl and Duke generally may not be
              used as Society names, even if the title is the
              submitters legal name. Names documented to have
              been used in period may be used, even if they
              were derived from titles, provided there is no
              suggestion of territorial claim or explicit
              assertion of rank. For example, Regina the
              Laundress is acceptable but Regina of Germany is
              not. Claim to membership in a uniquely royal
              family is also considered presumptuous, although
              use of some dynastic surnames do not necessarily
              claim royal rank. For example, there was a
              Scottish dynasty named Stewart , but there were
              also many other Stewart families so use of that
              surname does not link one unmistakably to the
              royal house. Hohenstaufen , on the other hand,
              seems to have only been used by the line of Holy
              Roman Emperors, so its use makes a clear
              dynastic claim. In some cases, use of an
              otherwise inoffensive occupational surname in a
              territorial context may make it appear to be a
              title or rank, such as John the Bard of Armagh
              or Peter Abbot of St. Giles."

              Note: I did not make up this rule, and I don't
              neccesarily endorse it. I'm just saying, that's
              the rule. It may very well change one day. The
              rules for submission have changed greatly in the
              time the SCA has been around. But these are the
              rules we are dealing with now.


              > Further, it is not clear that the <the X>
              > style was used in period

              > exclusively by the head of the family. For
              > example, both King Robert
              > I (Bruce) and his younger brother appear
              > styled as <the Bruce> in
              > Barbour's late 14th century poem "The Bruce".
              > Use of "the", at least
              > in some periods of period, may have simply
              > indicated a prominent
              > person of that name. (This is somethign that
              > has yet to be
              > investigated fully -- it's a bit of a question
              > mark.)
              >

              Is this Edward? He was High King of Ireland, so
              held title in his own right as well. This may
              explain it.


              > >There are two reasons why this is not
              > allowed.
              > >Number one, we do not presume rank in our SCA
              >
              > >names.
              >
              > Nonsense -- we presume rank in all sorts of
              > names that are allowed.
              > It is just that certain types of presuming
              > rank are not allowed. For
              > example, in a 16th century name, using the
              > style <X Y of Z> is
              > usually implies that you own land -- something
              > forbidden by SCA
              > convention. However, because in earlier
              > centuries the same style does
              > not necessarily imply that you own land and
              > because the SCA does not
              > consider persona stories but only the actual
              > name, it is allowed.
              > Except, of course, if you combine a historical
              > surname with a
              > historical territory that noble people of that
              > surname did actually
              > hold.
              >

              Which is what we want to avoid. You hit the
              nail on the head. SCA nameing practices may not
              adequately reflect stylings of rank in period,
              but neither does the SCA ranking system. It is
              far off any period model. I think this would
              have to be dealt with before any big reform of
              this rule in the CoH can take place.


              > But unfortunately the issue is presumption,
              > not simply conflict, and for this the SCA
              > tends to be picky of not
              > _appearing_ to be presumptious, not simply not
              > actually being
              > presumptious.
              > And in the case of Scotland, this means a wide
              > net that prevents not
              > only taking the styles of Earls and such, but
              > of any well known
              > land-holding family.
              >

              My point exactly, better stated.
              Aye,
              Eogan

              --
              Matthew A. C. Newsome
              Curator of the Scottish Tartans Museum
              Clan MacQuarrie
              -
              SCA: Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn
              Sacred Stone Persuivant
              -
              WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
              -
              1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of
              CHOICE
            • Sharon L. Krossa
              ... Sure it is. Lots of the rules they follow are silly, in many people s opinion (just not enough and/or the right people s opinion ;-). There is nothing
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 1, 1947
                At 2:01 PM -0500 12/31/01, Matt Newsome wrote:
                >I guess this is what I get for writing off a
                >quick email in haste. ;-) My main point was,
                >and still is, that in the SCA, when you submit a
                >name, you have to be careful about use of
                >presumptive names that claim rank. It seems I
                >went a bit agleg in the details, but my main
                >point still sticks.
                >
                >"Sharon L. Krossa" wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > >Presumption of rank isn't silliness at all.
                > >
                > > Some regard it as silliness -- presumption is
                > > a philosophical issue
                > > about which reasonable people will disagree.
                > >
                >
                >Well, you may think that the rule of submission
                >that (Part VI - Presumptuous Names) that
                >prohibits presumption of rank is silliness. But
                >the College of Heralds returning a submission
                >because it violates a pre-established rule is
                >not silly.

                Sure it is. Lots of the rules they follow are silly, in many people's
                opinion (just not enough and/or the right people's opinion ;-). There
                is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade or a silly rule a silly
                rule. Won't change the fact that the rule exists or that the CoA will
                follow it, of course.

                Perhaps what you mean to say is not that "Presumption of rank isn't
                silliness at all" but "Presumption of rank is prohibited by CoA
                registration rules, silly or not". The two are not equivalent
                statements. Something can by silliness _and_ still be a rule. (Your
                later replies have all concentrated on it being a rule and so
                something one has to deal with regardless of one's opinion of it, so
                I am assuming you are indicating that is what you meant to say in the
                first place, even though obviously that is not what you said
                originally ;-)

                >It is their job to follow the rules
                >that are in place, until they are changed. And
                >don't say, "Well, the heralds could change the
                >rules." I'm a herald. I can't change the
                >rules. The process involved in changing the
                >rules of submission goes far beyond the
                >consulting heralds looking at a submission.
                >They are only doing their job.

                Following a silly rule, in some folks opinion ;-)

                My point is that it is okay not to agree with the CoA rules -- even
                though those are the rules you must abide by if you want a name
                registered. The CoA rules are not handed down from the heavens. And
                people disagree with them for different reasons. Most of what I think
                is silly has to do with the rules that allow inauthentic names and
                especially the rules that forbid various authentic names -- just as
                generally I think various aspects of SCA culture that make authentic
                personas and play more difficult are silly, etc.

                I even know some people who disagree with these rules so much, for
                authenticity reasons, that they deliberately chose an authentic name
                that would not pass and use it in the SCA. Keep in mind that SCA name
                registration is purely voluntary, and there is no authority to
                prevent you from using an unregistered name. Social pressure is the
                only thing that controls that (which works mainly to prevent things
                like "King Soinso" rather than "Simon Fraser").

                > > >If I wanted to be
                > > >Eogan MacQuarrie,
                > >
                > > You would have a non-historical name -- mixing
                > > a Gaelic form of a
                > > given name with a Scots language form of a
                > > byname ;-)
                > >
                >
                >Eogan, of course, speaks fluent Gaelic. His
                >21st century counterpart, Matt, does not,
                >unfortunately. ;-) Another consequence of a
                >hastily typed email. How about we amend that to
                >either Eoghan mac Guaire or Ewan M'Goyre.

                Probably would work (I'm not going to look it up ;-)

                >Oh and while we are on the subject of Gaelic
                >names, do you (or anyone else) know of a
                >conveineint source, preferably on line, that
                >might show some of the historic changes
                >undergone by the Gaelic language at different
                >time periods. My main goal in knowing this
                >would be to have a resource to point to for when
                >people what to know how thier Gaelic name might
                >be spelled differently in the 16th century, vs
                >the 11th century, vs modern times.

                Not really, unfortunately. They're just going to have to ask someone
                who does know (which means someone familiar with Early Gaelic, Middle
                Gaelic, Common Classical Gaelic, and Modern Irish or Scottish Gaelic,
                etc.). In part this is because explaining it to someone who doesn't
                already have sufficient knowledge of these languages is not easy --
                you've got to know a fair amount already in order to know what to do
                to a particular name.

                There is a web page that shows the different periods and illustrates
                the changes in one word (<inghean>, as it happens), but that's about
                it:

                http://www.lincolnu.edu/~focal/docs/focaltl.htm

                Some other items of interest that touch on some of the issues of time
                can also be found in the language section of Medieval Scotland:

                http://www.MedievalScotland.org/scotlang/

                > > If the chief of the MacQuarries held Ulva,
                > > that is
                > > where the presumption comes in -- it wouldn't
                > > make you chief of the
                > > clan, it would make you seem to be claiming to
                > > be chief of the clan
                > > or at least closely related to the chief of
                > > the clan.
                >
                >And that is exactly what the SCA College of
                >Heralds wants to avoid,

                But they extend this prohibition more broadly for Scotland than
                elsewhere -- it doesn't just apply to barons and earls and dukes, but
                to any family, titled or not. I am not aware of any other naming
                culture for which the CoA regularly goes looking to see if any
                historical family of that name held that land -- only Scotland due to
                the _modern_ clans and chiefs stuff. (So add that as another reason I
                think it a silly rule - it is unevenly applied. But then, there is a
                lot that the SCA CoA does that places an undue burden on those
                seeking Scottish names -- such as the silliness with regard to
                conflict for patronymics...)

                ....

                >Which is what we want to avoid. You hit the
                >nail on the head. SCA nameing practices may not
                >adequately reflect stylings of rank in period,
                >but neither does the SCA ranking system. It is
                >far off any period model. I think this would
                >have to be dealt with before any big reform of
                >this rule in the CoH can take place.

                No, I don't think a major reform of the SCA ranking system needs to
                take place before the CoA name rules can be modified. They could
                modify the rules to only forbid claiming SCA rank without changing
                the system of SCA rank. (The current rules, after all, aren't mainly
                about presuming SCA rank, but rather mundane rank.) All that needs to
                change is sufficient people's attitudes about the relationship of the
                SCA to the real world -- that is, to stop worrying about implied real
                world rank that doesn't imply SCA rank and to start worrying more
                about not getting in the way of authentic recreations of medieval
                noble society. Getting over the unnatural phobia of land holding
                would also help (presumed to be noble but forbidden to claim to hold
                land is such an oxymoron ;-)

                Which isn't to say I think this particular aspect of the CoA name
                rules is going to get modified any time soon!

                Anyway, I should probably confess that I was one of the people who
                raised the issue or presumption with regard to Simon Montgomerie's
                original name submission -- I may not have raised the issue except
                that the original submission had a lot of issues that were not
                authentic (and in this case consequently not registerable), so I was
                solidifying reasons for return.

                Margaret, if you are interested I can send you my original commentary
                to the Drachenwald College of Heralds on both your submission and
                your husband's. I don't know what details you were given about the
                problems with the original submission for your husband's name... (at
                a minimum, my commentary can be used to justify the spelling of
                Montgomery used ;-)

                Sharon
                --
                Sharon L. Krossa, krossa@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.