[ANSTHRLD] Labels

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> > What is the College's opinion on registering Arms with
> > labels?.  Simonn of the Amber Isle's son Zane would like to
> > register his father's arms with a label.  With permission to
> > conflict is this acceptable? I have a picture I can attach,
> > is this acceptable to the list? AmberLea
>
> Yep, perfectly registerable, as long as a Letter of Permission to
> Conflict is included (because adding the label is only one Clear
> Difference).

To answer Crandall's objection abotu why someone would want to
register this, there's a Jaelle prec.:

    The question was raised in commentary as to why the submitter
    wished to register this, his father's arms with a label, since his
    father has also filed an heraldic will. This is because the
    submitter wishes to have registered arms in order to be able to
    receive a scroll, should he be awarded arms. It has been Laurel
    policy since the time of Wilhelm von Schussel that scrolls that
    convey arms at either award, grant or patent level, be only given
    to people who have registered names and devices. Note: this does
    not preclude someone without a registered name or device from
    receiving an award, just from receiving an official
    scroll. Promissory notes are not considered scrolls. (Jaelle of
    Armida, LoAR September 1996, p. 3)

Under the Old Rules, before May 1990, there was

    ("The heir of an armiger may bear the armiger's arms with a label
    or other such mark of cadency ... These cadenced versions of the
    arms need not be registered to be borne."  Rules XIV.D) [BoE, 10
    Mar 85, p.4]

I need to get to sleep, so I don't have time for a thorough precedents
dive, but I suspect that that's no longer the case: there's no written
rule and maybe no precedent was erected to replace it.  I did find
this in Bruce prec.:

    All these extensions of the Grandfather Clause have limitations,
    to prevent abuse.  We're lenient only as regards the exact problem
    of the original submission; the Grandfather Clause is not license
    to ignore our Rules wholesale.  Caer Anterth could still use a
    green trimount on a blue field; but even the Grandfather Clause
    wouldn't permit them to register, say, a trimount voided.  Indeed,
    we have a specific precedent: the device submission of Stephan of
    Bellatrix (Sable, on a bend Or three compass stars gules, overall
    a label argent).  The submission was his father's device plus a
    label; and the Clause permitted Stephan to ignore any conflicts
    that applied to his father.  But ``the Grandfather Clause cannot
    apply in cases where the submitted arms have a conflict to which
    the original device would not be subject.  Since his father's arms
    do not conflict with Carswell, but only his own, the Grandfather
    Clause cannot be applied here.''  [DiA, LoAR of Sept 91, p.20]

Danett Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com