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

Antique Maps

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Dec 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 6 , Dec 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 6 , Dec 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 6 , Dec 31, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 6 , Dec 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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@...
            • 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 6 of 6 , Jan 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                "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
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.