[ANSTHRLD] Labels

[Crandall]

Ok, boys and girls; I will say this once. 
  I simply stated what had been said in the past, and was reflected by the below referenced old rules and precedences. Thank you Danny Boy. 
  And I want to make it clear that I HAD NO OBJECTION. 
   
  Crandall, who will now go back into his cave. 

tmcd at panix.com wrote:
  On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Jennifer Smith 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
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org