Compiled by Bartholomew Baskin and katherine kerr from their own communications and public record
This FAQ consists of questions raised many times over the past five years regarding the process to decide on in-game terms for Australia and New Zealand. We have attempted to distill the answers to their most pertinent points -- lengthy debates involving many people in both countries have been held on The Shambles and elsewhere, so check the archives if you want to see full comments as they occurred.
The process to decide on these names -- begun formally by Crux Australis in 2005 (see TIMELINE below) -- is currently stalled, but the need remains.
Why do we need names for Australia and New Zealand?
Why does Australia need a name, isn't this just about New Zealand?
This doesn't happen -- you're making it up or at least exaggerating
No-one's interested in this so why bother?
But we're all one Kingdom, so isn't this divisive?
Why not just assume that Australia is "mainland Lochac"?
Why not just use the SCA names of where-ever you mean?
Why not just use Australia and New Zealand?
Drachenwald and other Kingdoms don't need regional names. Why do we?
Why can't we just use West Lochac and East Lochac?
New Zealand has two islands so why not call them the Islands of Southron Gaard and Ildhafn?
Are we going to have to name all the states or every possible island or bit of territory?
Is this because New Zealand wants to be a Principality?
So what are the names that have been suggested?
I don't like [name]. Do I have to use it?
Do the names have to be registerable?
What happens next?
What can I do to help?
TIMELINE
Because every time that someone uses Lochac as a synonym for Australia, and Australia alone, it implies that New Zealand does not belong to the Kingdom. This happens more often than you might realise, on both sides of the Tasman, because it was once correct and is now a habit.
Because it can be very awkward in game to try to refer to necessary elements of living in, travelling between and administering a Kingdom consisting of distinct mundane nations and different management groups, without having regional terms. Either the game gets broken, or strange, lengthy and often-inconsistent convolutions are used.
Because it's common for Kiwis to be asked when visiting Australia "when did you get to Lochac?". NB: New Zealand joined Australia in the Kingdom of Lochac in AS37 -- 2003. So the correct answer is "many years ago".
Australians who haven't encountered this might like to try the following thought experiment:
Say you go to May Crown in Darton (New Zealand). The gate keeper gives you a cheery smile on seeing your membership card and says "Welcome to Lochac!".
Do you think:
(a) what a friendly person!
(b) huh? but I just came from Lochac....
(c) So what's *my* part of the Kingdom -- chopped liver??Over the next two days you hear the following:
"When did you get to Lochac?"
"Is this your first time in Lochac?"
"How long are you staying in Lochac?"
"We have day memberships in Lochac"
"You don't need waivers in Lochac."
"When are you leaving Lochac?"
Now many of these examples can be ameliorated by simply saying "this part of Lochac", to recognise that the Kingdom of Lochac refers to the whole Kingdom, and not just one component part of it. We should all do our best to remember that.
But having regional names recognises that sometimes we do need to refer to the two major mundane nations within our Kingdom and reminds us that when we use the Kingdom's name, it is the united Kingdom to which we refer and to which we all belong, regardless of which side of the Tasman we live.
We need those names because everytime an Australian says "In Lochac" when you actually mean "in Australia" you break our game and our hearts....And the same when we hear a Kiwi say "over in Lochac they...".
katherine kerr, Barony of Southron Gaard
It is also useful to have two names for people who are discussing Lochac from outside the Kingdom. The Known Worlde is a large place, and people do travel across it:
"I'm coming to Lochac!"
"Great, which country?"
"Huh?"
No, it's about having a united Kingdom where the entire populace belongs to Lochac. That needs to be recognised on both sides of the Tasman.
Having a name for New Zealand without also having a name for Australia feeds straight into the idea that Australia=Lochac and NZ=Not Lochac.
The principal way New Zealand is being defined as Not-Lochac is by having Australia=Lochac expressed over and over again by Australians and, inevitably, by Kiwis following their lead.
That's why having a name for Australia is as important, if not more so, than having a name for New Zealand, and why this process must be a tandem one.
And the problem is not just one noticed by Kiwis:
The problem for us (Ynys Fawr) is that if we are going somewhere _we_ need a name to refer to. 'I am going to Lochac' means we are not part of the Kingdom. 'I am going to the mainland' denigrates the importance of the islands off to the right (we can say 'I am going to the islands off to the right' already, but they largely realise it would be nice to have some sort of identity rather than this). 'I am going to Stormhold and Rowany and Polit and ....' is very long winded. 'I am going to Ynys Goch' means we are visiting the flat bit up north, possibly several bits of it. This last is good.
Baron Hrolf Herjolfsson, Barony of Ynys Fawr
Australia should know better - for such a long time we were ruled by the West but not thought of as being part of the West. It's why when people started talking about giving New Zealand a name within game I jumped up and down and said if that happens, Australia needs an ingame name too. Because we are two mundane nations, but we are all Lochac.
Blodeuwedd y Gath, Barony of Innilgard
Every example in this FAQ was actually said/written or (in the case of the Darton example) is a direct analogy of actual statements that have been said repeatedly to travellers going in the opposite direction.
Some of the examples have been heard many times over, said by people in most parts of the Kingdom. That's not to say everyone has the same Lochac=Australia thought habit, but it's a very easy one to fall prey to because of the time when the then-Principality of Lochac was only Australia.
I have had the same conversation with every single Crown that has gone to NZ since unification. It begins with "Eh, it's not a big issue, I don't think we need to force it." "OK", I say, "let's talk about this again in a few days after you've been talking with people." A few days later: "Oh god, we need names ..."
Duchess Yolande Kesteven, Barony of Rowany
Every time this proposal comes up, people across both sides of the Tasman get involved. You may see only a small number at any one time, depending in what forum the topic comes up, but there have been many discussions and many people concerned about this.
It was considered important enough for the Crown and Crux Australis to put into motion a formal process to call for names to be proposed for both countries from both countries. (See the timeline below). That stalled because of the perceived need to document every proposed name, but it doesn't have to stall permanently. As long as it is stalled, those who are trying to avoid the Lochac=Australia usage end up using names or terms which some people don't recognise, or don't like. That's not desirable.
It is more divisive to unconsciously or deliberately reinforce the notion that one part of the Kingdom doesn't belong.
Agreed names will assist inclusiveness by removing that tendency. The aim is to ensure that the sense of belonging is enhanced, allowing us to keep our committment to our collective name for our Kingdom, while enabling us to distinguish between the two countries when we have to, without any kind of freighting.
Real inclusiveness sometimes requires that you acknowledge the existence of different sub-groups within the inclusive whole. If you assume that inclusion in the major group means that all group members and their circumstances are identical, then that can lead to problems.
Here's a mundane example. Imagine staff memos along these lines:
It wouldn't be too long before a certain segment of staff would stop laughing and start muttering....
Because that buys into the Lochac=Australia mindset, with New Zealand being "the other bit". That mindset is not particularly beneficial for the Kingdom, and having regional names helps to emphasise that the Kingdom is a whole, instead of the Kingdom is Australia plus Other Bits.
This is also an issue for Tasmanians, since "mainland" by definition excludes them, whereas an agreed name for Australia would not.
It's something that has affected both groups in the past, in their relations with their founding Kingdoms. When Lochac was a Principality of the West, it was not often treated as such. Visiting Kings and Queens would talk about the West as a separate place far away; Kingdom Offices were to be held by those living in the West...er..the central West. Here's an example from the archives:
In the time of the Principality of Lochac, the Kingdom of the West gifted the Prince of Lochac a ring to wear that bore the arms of the West. The legend and ceremony at the investiture suggested that the ring should be sent to the West if there was need of the Crown.
But whether in the Principality of Lochac or in the Principality of the Mists (San Francisco), the ring was already in the West. But only in the minds of some....
New Zealanders used to use the term "mainland" Caid to try to make the point that there was a part "over there" and a part "here". But that wasn't wholly successful:
I hope that the making of a name for New Zealand will be followed by a name for Australia which is for me an important part of making us feel like we belong to Lochac. I never felt like I belonged to Caid, we were far away, saw Royalty rarely, and were not allowed to take a full part of the Kingdom - we could not be Kingdom officers, we could not hold Crown events. We called them "mainland Caid" because it was true - we were a second class part of the Kingdom. It's wonderful though that we are a full part of Lochac, as evidenced by having held a Crown event, and having the Kingdom Seneschal be a citizen of Ildhafn. As long as the best name we have for Australia is "mainland Lochac" it will rankle however.
Eleyne de Comnocke, Barony of Ildhafn
That works if you're just talking about one specific location.
But try saying you'll be touring around the lands of the Barony of Ildhafn and the Canton of Cluain and the Crown Lands and the Shire of Darton and the Barony of Southron Gaard and the Canton of Castelburn plus all the Colleges these places have. That's a bit of a mouthful, when you could simply say you're going to [regional name].
It's even worse when you're trying to say "this ruling only applies in Australia" while wanting to stay in-game -- the list of groups is ridiculously long. There isn't a convenient in-game short-cut in most situations, so either you're forced out of game and so use "Australia", or you use the default of "Lochac" meaning just Australia.
I remember being at Canty Faire 2004 and wanting to point out that there were things done better than at any event I'd been to in Australia. I blathered through Lochac West/ The continental lands of Lochac/ the formerly West Territories of Lochac, and eventually generalised by saying it was the best thing I'd seen in the Known Worlde, which given I only attended one event in America is probably a reach.
Duchess Yolande Kesteven, Barony of Rowany
That's fine for when we are talking out of game -- just as we can chat about computers, Dr Who and car problems.
But what about when the need arises in Court, in formal correspondence, or any one of a hundred other in-game interactions? This need does occur -- Australia and New Zealand would be pretty jarring words to hear dropped in the midst of that.
Even when talking about administrative matters (e.g. the Marshallate or Exchequer) many people try to avoid needlessly mundane references, because it undermines either our game or that of our readers or listeners. Those who don't care will use the mundane names. But for those who do?
Also, the mundane names can actually enhance the division -- they remind us that we are separate places, with separate cultures, histories etc, and even some strong non-SCA rivalries from time to time. It's easier to ignore that if we can use SCA terms.
To me Australia is the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Steve Irwin, kangaroos, Kevin Rudd, green-and-gold-clad sportsmen, ockers and "slap another prawn on the barbie mate".
Terra Rosa, in contrast, is a place with many delightful, learned, courteous people that I admire greatly, with noble Baronies, cheerful Colleges, welcoming Shires, full of people who dance, and sing, and fight and play.
katherine kerr, Barony of Southron Gaard
Actually, many Kingdoms have regional names, whether for formal administrative regions or more casual collections or groups. For Drachenwald, for example, see http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Kingdom_of_Drachenwald.
This is even more significant when you consider that the name "Drachenwald" arose differently from "Lochac". There was not once a Principality of Drachenwald based only in (say), Germany, whose name was then adopted for the larger Kingdom.
Thus, they do not often encounter Germans going to South Africa and saying "In Drachenwald we...". And they do not have folk in Iceland saying "when we get to Drachenwald we'll..."
Comments like those are heard reasonably often in Lochac by people who regularly interact or travel across the Tasman.
Other Kingdoms also commonly use regional names. The the East Kingdom uses geographical position (eg the Northern Shores); the Kingdom of Northshield uses descriptive terms (eg Lakes, Plains and Woodlands) as does the Midrealm (Midlands, Constellation, Pentamere, Oaken - which generally apply to US States within the Kingdom). Ansteorra is generally geographical (West, Northern, Central, Southern, Coastal -- see http://www.ansteorra.org/graphics/kingdom_map/regions.htm).
Any agreed names are better than none. These two might end up as default usage for some people, though they aren't in the current set that have been proposed.
However, they can be confusing and a tad clumsy -- most people would think of Aneala as being West Lochac, rather than including Rowany or Ynys Fawr in that description.
Or you get into the even more silly terminology like "in that bit-of-Lochac-to-the-west-of-our-bits-of-Lochac-but-not-including-the-smaller-bit-to-the-south-of the-larger-bit". Of course, it also depends on where you're sitting, so is very context dependent....
Also there has been very strong sentiment expressed that any polling on names has to be conducted separately, with Australians picking their own regional name and New Zealanders doing likewise. That makes twinset names impossible, unless the names are bestowed by Crown fiat.
Because those islands also include Darton and Cluain and Castelburn and the Crown lands and the Colleges....
And because providing a decent name for New Zealand is actually less important than providing one for Australia (because of the old Lochac=Australia equivalence).
No. We're not trying to name everything, but just those two national entities that are physically, socially, historically and politically distinct. If we didn't require passports and quarantine, and have distinct governing entities (SCAA, SCANZ) and different legal systems and currencies, and if we didn't come into the Kingdom with subtly different SCA histories and cultures, there wouldn't sometimes need to be a distinction made in-game. But we did.
Lochac is NOT "that big bit over there". It is right here, under my feet.
Bartholomew Baskin, Barony of Southron Gaard
Hell no. Informal widespread polling of New Zealanders indicates there is no desire for the local groups to form a Principality. Maybe after a decade or two... But at present, the most common response would be "What??? We only just got to be properly part of a Kingdom!!". This process is emphatically NOT a stalking-horse for some future divorce.
Of course, the Australian groups might wish to go Principality at some time and, if there's a Kiwi King on the throne at the time, he may look on that petition kindly....but then Australia would have to have a name for its Principality...
(See also: Update, June 2008 below.)
There have been many, very very many.
At present, the two most common names used to informally refer to New Zealand are the Crescent Isles and Gottmark, but over 150 names have been proposed, some more seriously than others. "The Eastern Islands" or "the Eastern lands of Lochac" have also been used.
The most common name used to refer to Australia was Terra Rosa (or Ynys Goch if you're from Ynys Fawr - though they tend to use that for just "mainland" Australia). Both those names were coined by Australians to refer to Australia.
There are 18 names for each country that were been recorded by Crux Australis as part of the formal Kingdom-wide call for names made in 2005. The final shortlists as published by Crux Australis at the time were:
| NEW ZEALAND | AUSTRALIA |
|---|---|
| Cloudy Isles | Rooaun/Rooghan/Rooghaun |
| Crescent Isles | Tir Rhudd |
| Gotmark/Gottmark | Terra Rubrica |
| Tertia Mons | Terra Rouge |
| The Southern Marches | Terra Rosa |
| Incendia Insula | Terra Australis |
| Transmarina | St Sexberga's Holm |
| Belmarye | Old Lochac |
| Oltremare | Ynys Goch |
| Castilleon | Westermark |
| Dunalyan | Cour de Rouge |
| Wolcenland | Augustus Mons |
| Idonea | Rubrica Cor |
| Tir na Lir | Rubrica |
| Magna Shepeg | New Holland |
| Alteron | Rudland |
| Terra viriditas | Vestmark |
| Holmland/Holmlond | Western Lands |
Gotmark and Holmland and Belmarye,
Is one of these names the name for we?
Fie on the heralds! Let's all agree
On Gotmark AND Holmland AND Belmarye.
Jehanne
(See also: Update, June 2008 below.)
No, you don't. There's nothing official about any of the names or terms currently being used. You could, of course, participate in the process to ensure you at least have the chance to get a name you like recognised.
There have been some suggestions that we should try to select registerable names so that one day if either side of the Tasman decides to become a Principality, it has a name it can use for that.
There has also been the suggestion that the names could be registered as heraldic titles to protect them for future use.
However, another approach is to use disposable regional identifiers which no one would consider carrying over to any Principalities that might arise in the future. This, at least, has the advantage of making the process more achievable, as documenting every proposed name as being registerable BEFORE running a poll is a mammoth undertaking.
Example: Folk in New Zealand, once it grew to have more than one group, adopted the informal name "Southern Reaches (of Caid)" and used it for over a decade without worrying about registration. And when the New Zealand groups joined Lochac, that name was abandoned without fuss, because it didn't sound geographically reasonable any more. That model could work well for this process.
(See also: Update, June 2008 below.)
The naming process was formally commenced in 2005 (see May and July issues of Pegasus in that year). However, it stalled because the approach adopted -- the desire to prove all the proposed names ahead of any poll -- was an impossible workload for the College of Heralds.
The process could be resumed and completed by:
a) Running a poll with the existing names and asking people in either country to, say, rank their favourite 3-5 names for their country, then documenting the the top names chosen for each -- working down the list to find the most favoured one that is properly documentable and can be registered.
OR
b) More simply, not worrying about registration. Instead, just run the polls and use the successful leading names informally for as long as they seem to be needed. (And if someone wants to use an alternate name and it gains some traction, that's their perogative).
Note that any such poll would have only the citizens of each mundane nation voting for the name for their bit. So no name would be imposed from the outside.
Ensure that when you use the term "Lochac", you're talking about the entire, united Kingdom -- not just a sub-section of it.
Remember when you are talking about a sub-section of Lochac, to acknowledge it as such -- "there are snakes in this part of Lochac".
Let others know about the naming issue, talk about it, get involved. Even if you disagree with it -- it's better to have debate than indifference.
See Update, June 2008 below and, if the Crown sets a direction, join the Baronages of Lochac in following it.
1990-1991
Southern Reaches informally used to refer to New Zealand, as Southron Gaard was no longer the only group operating. Though never registered, and no longer used locally as it doesn't fit the geography of the new Kingdom, it is still being used by the Society Earl Marshal now (quoted in Pegasus March 2008):
“NOTE: Since only Lochac in the West and the Southern
Reaches of Caid still use 3/4 inch blunts, reference to these has been removed from the rules.
The SCA Marshal will continue to allow the above-named regions to use the blunts, as well as
plumes instead of the red pheon for the non-contact symbol...."
2002
Dame Alys provided some name suggestions, incluidng Gottmark and Belmarye, based on discussions from 1993, 1996, 1999, 2001 - see http://verso.org/medievalism/gottmark.html
2003
HM Cornelius used the "Crescent Isles" to refer to New Zealand at the time it was taken into the Kingdom of Lochac; the name is taken up by many (preliminary documentation commentary on that name by katherine kerr:
http://webcentre.co.nz/kk/mapci.htm)
2004-2006
Recurring discussions and many name suggestions on Althing (an NZ-wide discussion list) and The Shambles (Lochac-wide).
Collection of emails regarding specific names (March/April 2004): http://sg.sca.org.nz/nznamesdialog.htm
A list of the many and varied names suggested for New Zealand:
http://sg.sca.org.nz/nznames.htm
2005
May: Crux announces in Pegasus the opening of name proposals for New Zealand
May-August: widespread discussion on the Shambles; see Lochac Digests Vols 22-25
July: Crux announces in Pegasus the opening of name proposals for Australia
September: Nominations on names for Australia and New Zealand closed by Crux; requests for documentation assistance made
Final list: http://www.sca.org.au/herald/nznames.htm
October -- Details of poll to run concurrently in Australia and NZ set to appear in Pegasus, but did not as there was not enough time to do documentation research on the full list of proposed names.
2006
March: Kingdom Herald's report: Names for New Zealand and Australia. We collected a set of names for New Zealand and Australia about six months ago with the intent of coming up with something official to name the countries. My plan for the next phase of that project was that the College of Heralds would attempt to document the various names. However nobody much seemed willing or able to do said documentation. Since I simply couldn't do it all on my own, the process stalled.
http://www.sca.org.au/seneschal/index.php/standard/41/226
September: Further discussion on names project by Crux and Herald Astrolabe (NZ deputy); intention to have poll open by Festival 2007, close by May Crown 2007 and announced Mid-Winter 2007; but documentation research could not be carried out.
2008
March -- This name FAQ goes online.
June -- After a very intensive discussion at Festival and for two months thereafter, the assembled Baronages of Lochac published this joint missive to The Crown of Lochac, in the hope that it might lead to a satisfactory long-term resolution of this issue.
November: Their Majesties announced that the terms "the Continent" (Australia) and "the Crescent Isles" (New Zealand) will henceforth be used to refer to the lands in question.
If you have any questions or comments on this page, by all means email Bartholomew.