Wed Feb 18 09:46:32 1998
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:01:22 +0000
From: Zenobia
Subject: Precedents, and how rules change

Start old, read through to latest.

A decent approach for most research, but not too good for precedent, at least heraldic precedent (and I suspect, mundane legal precedent too.)

SCA precedents are best approached reading the newest first. Many of them will explicitly refer to earlier precedent which they are either overturning, or which support them. This facilitates the process of the research. It is true that not all precedents do give this rationale, so dogged reading back through the various volumes will give you more information. This is part of the reason why the Laurel Precedent volumes (organized by topic) are so useful for the researcher in comparison with doing searches on the raw text of the Laurel letters.

The problem with reading precedents from oldest to newest is that the oldest SCA precedents approached heraldry, particularly heraldic difference, from a modern visual standpoint. This has changed over to an approach which tries to emulate period cadency criteria -- changes which would have been made to arms to show one degree of relatedness, such as would be made by a second son to difference his arms from that of his father (the first son, we assume for purposes here, being the heraldic heir as is common, and therefore the person who will inherit the father's arms undifferenced on the father's decease.)

The two approaches diverge significantly in effect. If you go with the pre-cadency rules, for example, an overall charge is considered the 'primary' charge and its addition is enough to clear certain types of conflict. If you go with the post-cadency rules addition of an overall charge is just another cadency change, and therefore worth a difference by one of the clauses of X.4 -- but it isn't the "primary" charge and its addition alone is not enough to clear two pieces of armory by "addition of primary charge."

Also, older precedent is usually based on less thorough heraldic research. As the SCA has matured its heraldic research has matured. There are more people with good reliable reference sources, and the heraldic community at large knows about more sources, allowing the researcher to be directed either to someone's private library (Jaelle has this book) or a public library. A reading through the very very early precedents (Karina of the Far West, for example) will find some rulings which are still "golden" today, but others which have been superceded, not because of SCA heraldic philosophy, but because of research into what is, and what isn't, period heraldry. (Of course, there will be any number of rulings which were superceded for SCA philosophical reasons, too.)

So when hounding through precedents it is worth going backwards. The real legalists/rules historians/what have you among us might also find it interesting to compare the precedents with the rules in effect at the time. For example, something that was cited as an example in the text of a Rule would be unlikely to be cited as precedent. In a time when the rules change, any examples from the old rules get thrown out and may or may not still apply and only after that point will they (or similar examples) become enshrined in precedent. The "old rules" are on the Laurel web page for just this sort of academic research and enlightenment on precedent.

For the last 5 or so years Laurel Sovereign has maintained a staff officer, Palimpsest Herald, in charge of rules discussions. Previously there had not particularly been a College of Arms policy for rules discussions and their conduct. Now there is a standard process by which topics are proposed to Palimpsest by members of the College of Arms, Palimpsest moderates and distills the ensuing discussion, and then Laurel rules on it. Laurel continues to have the final word, of course, but there is an expected and known time frame in which to have comments for proposed rules changes. However, since the first couple of years after the big visual/cadency rules change in '89 or so, the rules discussions have been pretty sedate. This is good, the branch heralds don't forever have to chase after the newest rules. It also speaks well for the maturity and useability of the document.

Note that the pre-1989(ish) rules were not the "original" rules either. However, their predecessors were Before my Time: I don't know much about them, and they never seem to come up in College of Arms discussion. (At this point, examples from the pre-1989 rules only seem to come up, at most, once a year in College of Arms comments, that's quite infrequent.)

*sigh* enough pontificating, guys, those of you at work, wake up! Your bosses will hear you snoring!

Zenobia Couronne Rouge