| Laurel: | Date: (year.month.date) | Precedent: |
| Personal Names | ||
| Shauna of Carrick Point | 2004.05 | This name combines English and Gaelic elements in a single name; this is one step from period practice. The double given names Caitlin Christiana are grandfathered to the submitter, whose name Caitlin Christiana Rosa del León was registered in 1987. The Grandfather Clause allows a submitter to register name elements from a previously registered name, so long as they are used in the same manner and exactly the same spelling as in the previously registered name and no new violations of the Rules for Submissions exist in the new name that did not exist in the registered name. Therefore, we must ask if the changes in byname and name construction introduce a new violation of the Rules for Submission that was not present in the original submission. They does not. Instead, the change from Rosa del León to Wintour reduces the number of languages in this name. Therefore, this name is registerable via the Grandfather Clause. [Caitlin Christiana Wintour, 05/04, A-Caid] |
| Shauna of Carrick Point | 2004.04 | The byname combination "de Bruce the Fowler" is grandfathered to her; it is her husband's registered surname. [Caitrina de Bruce the Fowler, 04/04, A-Artemesia] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.12 | The submitter's husband registered the SCA name David of Whaleshaven in January 1983. Therefore, the submitter may register the byname of Whaleshaven under the Grandfather Clause. [Anne of Whaleshaven, 12/2003, A-West] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.10 | Submitted as Maddelena du Lamour Vrai, this item was submitted as a name change from the submitter's currently registered name. The LoI listed her currently registered name as Madeleine du Lamour Vrai. However, her name was registered in June 1998 as Madeleine Delamour le Vrai. Elements of a previously registered name are only grandfathered to the submitter in the exact form in which they were registered. As no documentation was provided and none was found for the byname du Lamour Vrai, we have changed the byname in this submission to match her previously registered byname in order to register this name. [Maddelena Delamour le Vrai, 10/2003, A-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.08 | The byname Belgraunde is grandfathered to the submitter as it is the registered byname of his father, whose SCA name is Francois Belgraunde (registered in December 1995). [Franz Belgraunde die Mus, 08/2003 LoAR, A-�thelmearc] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.08 | The submitter's real-world father registered the SCA name Reinmar Wolfmeier in February of 1991. Therefore, the submitter may register the byname Wolfmeier under the Grandfather Clause. [Dietmar Wolfmeier, 08/2003 LoAR, A-Artemisia] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.06 | The form of the byname in Rau�hára is grandfathered to her from her previously registered name. [Katla in Rau�hára, 06/2003 LoAR, A-An Tir] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.04 | In the documentation for the byname o' Whyspering Wude, the LoI stated that the components of byname were grandfathered to the submitter. However, RfS II.5 limits grandfathered items only to the actual registered name elements. In this case, the byname of Whispering Wude is grandfathered to the submitter. Any changes to this byname negates the Grandfather Clause and causes the new name phrase, in this case o' Whyspering Wude, to be considered as a new item.
Whispering is no longer registerable as an adjective in a placename:
Therefore, the new locative byname o' Whyspering Wude, which is not grandfathered to the submitter, is not registerable because it contains Whyspering. [Donnan o' Whyspering Wude, 04/2003 LoAR, R-East] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.02 | Regarding Thorgeirrson, the LoI stated that, "The submitter is using this as a marriage name, as Haakon Thorgeirrson is her legal husband." There are two problems with this name. First, no documentation was presented for this relationship other than this statement in the LoI. Lacking such evidence, the submission is not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. (See the Cover Letter for the October 2002 LoAR "Clarification of the Grandfather Clause" for more details.)
Were documentation provided as required for the Grandfather Clause, her husband's Norse patronymic byname would still not be registerable with a feminine given name. Precedent states:
Throughout period, bynames were literal in Scandinavia. Metron Ariston explains:
Therefore, a name combining any form of Thorgeirrson with a feminine given name is grammatically incorrect and is not registerable. Further, because her husband's name does not have this violation, her name submission introduces a new violation of the rules as prohibited in the precedent cited above. [Alizaunde Thorgeirrson, 02/2003 LoAR, R-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.02 | Wyvern Heyghts was registered as the household name to the submitter's parents, Sean Vuibhearn and Elyramere of Tymbrelyne Heyghts, in July 1992. Therefore, the submitter may register the byname of Wyvern Heyghts under the Grandfather Clause. [Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003 LoAR, A-Caid] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.01 | The LoI stated that "an Druaidh is the registered last name of submitter's mundane husband (Conall Mac an Druaidh - 8/1994 Atlantia)". However, Conall's byname is not an Druaidh. The elements an Druaidh are simply part of his byname, which is Mac an Druaidh, 'son of the druid'. Only entire elements of name phrases may be used under the Grandfather Clause. Therefore, since Mac an Druaidh is the grandfathered element, it is not eligible to support a submitted byname inghean an Druaidh 'daughter of the druid'. Since patronymic bynames are literal in Gaelic in period, Mac an Druaidh may not be used as a woman's byname, because she is a daughter, not a son. [Bronwen inghean an Druaidh, 01/2003 LoAR, R-Atlantia] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.01 | Silverswan was submitted under the Grandfather Clause. Though the LoI stated that Brian is the husband of Katriona Silverswan, no documentation was submitted supporting this relationship. (Please see the Cover Letter for the October 2002 LoAR for a discussion regarding the Grandfather Clause and documentation to support relationships.) Lacking documentation supporting the relationship between Brian and Katriona, Silverswan is not available to Brian via the Grandfather Clause.
The College was unable to find documentation of Silver used in an English sign name. The registration of Katriona's name states:
The registration requirements have changed since Katriona's registration in 1992. Lacking evidence of Silver used in an English sign name, Silverswan is not registerable. Brian may register it if documentation is provided to support Katriona as his legal wife. Given the examples listed in the January 1992 LoAR and those found by the College, Whiteswan would be registerable as a locative byname derived from a sign name. However, it was felt that the change from Silverswan to Whiteswan was a major change, which the submitter does not allow. [Brian Silverswan, 01/2003 LoAR, R-East] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.12 | In this name, Ryan and Murdoch may be considered as two given names. Therefore, this name is registerable, though use of two given names in Scots is a weirdness.
Note: Ryan, which is his legal given name, is grandfathered to him from his previously registered name. [Ryan Murdoch Mackenzie, 12/2002, A-Middle] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.11 | The submitter is the husband of Mylisant D'Etcheverry, whose name is registered in this LoAR, and so may register D'Etcheverry via the Grandfather Clause. [Jean Paul D'Etcheverry, 11/2002, A-Ansteorra] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.11 | The only documentation provided for Claymore in the LoI was:
Unless the submitter is an immediate family member (and that's legal family member, not SCA household family) the Grandfather Clause is inapplicable. As no documentation has been provided for such a relationship, there was no usable documentation provided for Claymore. [Renee Claymore, 11/2002, A-Æthelmearc] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | From Laurel: Clarification of the Grandfather Clause
This month we had several submissions that wished to use the "Grandfather Clause" when submitting a new name. From these submissions it is evident there is confusion about what the clause is and how to use it. The "Grandfather Clause" refers to section II.5 of the Rules for Submission. For the full text I refer you to the Rules for Submission. In 1995 the clause was extended to include immediate family in the precedent:
The clause also allows for family to use the same name element. I know that many consider some relationships inside the SCA to be family, but in this context, "nearest kin" is real-world family only. Support for use of the "Grandfather Clause" by family members must be included with the submission. Such support may be a letter signed by the family member with the original registration indicating the family relations, or it may be other documentation such as a birth certificate. [Cover Letter for the 10/2002 LoAR] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | From Laurel: Additions to Appendix D, Suggested Standard Form Letters
The following sample letters are being added to help submitters and their local heralds provide the required information when submitting items for registration that include either the use of the "Grandfather Clause" (Rules for Submission II.5) [...]. These suggested letter formats are additions to those currently defined in Appendix D of the Administrative Handbook of the College of Arms. Documentation of Legal Relationship for Grandfather Clause I, [Legal name], known in the SCA as [Society name], attest that [Legal name of submitter], known in the SCA as [Society name of submitter], is my legal [father / mother / wife / husband / son / daughter / brother / sister]. I understand that this letter cannot be withdrawn once [Legal name of submitter]'s name is registered.[Cover Letter for the 10/2002 LoAR] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | Listed on the LoI as Franz Belgraunde die Maus, this name was submitted as Franz Belgraunde Das Mause and changed at Kingdom to correct the grammar.
The LoI asserted that "Belgraunde is grandfathered to the submitter, as he is the mundane son of Francois Belgraunde, whose name was registered in December 1995." However, no documentation was provided supporting this relationship other than the statement in the LoI. Lacking such documentation, this name element is not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. We have changed this element to the form Belgrand, which was documented in the LoI, in order to register this name. Maus was documented as a header form in Brechenmacher. However, all period forms of the name Maus, as well as those that include -maus or Maus- as an element, found by the College use the spelling Mus (-mus, Mus-). Therefore, as Maus does not seem to be a period form, we have changed the byname to use the element Mus in order to register this name. [Franz Belgrand die Mus, 10/2002, A-Æthelmearc] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | Listed on the LoI as Patrick Olesson, this name was submitted as Patrick Oleson. Lacking documentation for the spelling
Oleson, the byname was changed at Kingdom to use the spelling Olesson based on the construction of the byname registered to "his mundane sister, Caryl Olesdatter (registered 07/92)." However, no documentation was provided for the relationship between the submitter and Caryl Olesdatter except for the statement in the LoI. Lacking supporting documentation for this relationship, this name is not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. Even had such documentation been provided, the Grandfather Clause would not have been applicable in this case since "[o]nly the actual name element from the originally registered submission is covered by this permission" (RfS II.5). That would mean that Olesdatter is covered by the Grandfather Clause. The submitted Olesson is not.
Sveriges Medeltida Personnamn (p. 49, column one, s.n. Alf) dates Alff Olsson to 1479. We have changed the byname to this spelling in order to register this name. [Patrick Olsson, 10/2002, A-Æthelmearc] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | Submitted as Bréanainn Ross Grayem, the name was changed to Bréanainn Ross Graym at Kingdom to match the spelling of the submitter's father's registered name (Ian Graym, registered in February 1997). Since no documentation was provided for the relationship between the submitter and Ian Graym except for the statement in the LoI, the element Graym is not eligible for the Grandfather Clause. As alternate documentation was provided for this element, it is registerable. [Bréanainn Ross Graym, 10/2002, A-Ansteorra] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.10 | The documentation presented in the LoI for the byname da Quaglietta was:
"The byname was registered to her husband, Niccolo da Quaglietta, in September 1999; it is his legal surname, and it is also a town in central Italy. It is also found in De Felice Cognomi, under Quaglia, p. 204. (Quaglia is the Italian word for "quail.") There are several problems with the submitted documentation. First, no supporting documentation was provided for the submitter's relationship to Niccolo da Quaglietta. Lacking such supporting documentation, the Grandfather Clause is not available for this submission. Examining the submitted byname da Quaglietta without the Grandfather Clause, more issues arise. No documentation was provided to support Quaglietta as a "town in central Italy". De Felice references this byname as a descriptive byname (or nickname), not as a locative byname. Lacking documentation that Quaglietta was an Italian town name in period, the byname da Quaglietta is not registerable. As she allows no changes, we were unable to drop da in order to register this name. [Catalina da Quaglietta, 10/2002, R-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.09 | Medvednikova was also submitted under the Grandfather Clause, as the LoI states that "Medvednikova is the submitter's real mother's SCA name." However, no documentation, other than a simple statement of a relationship, was provided with this submission to support this relationship. Lacking such supporting documentation, the Grandfather Clause may not be used. As the College was able to provide alternate documentation for Medvednikova, it is registerable. [Khristina Ivanovna Medvednikova, 09/2002 LoAR, A-Calontir] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.07 | The element Kathoum, used in the byname ibn Kathoum, was submitted as the father's legal given name. The Legal Name Allowance only applies to elements of the submitter's own name. At the same time as this submission, the submitter's father submitted an Arabic name using Kathoum as his given name via the Legal Name Allowance. (That submission is returned this month for other issues.) The Grandfather Clause allows elements of immediate family members to be used in the same manner and exactly the same spelling as in the registered name regardless of the current registerability of that element, so long as no new violations of the Rules for Submissions exist in the new name that did not exist in the registered name. In Arabic, given names used in a patronymic byname have the same case as given names used in given name positions, so the spelling of Kathoum used in a patronymic byname would not change from the spelling Kathoum used as a given name. Therefore, if the submitter's father registers Kathoum as the given name in his SCA name, the submitter may register ibn Kathoum as an Arabic byname in his SCA name. Since Kathoum is a modern Arabic masculine given name, the byname ibn Kathoum complies with RfS III.1.a, which requires linguistic consistency in a byname. [Rami Hussein ibn Kathoum, 07/2002, R-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.06 | From Laurel: Regarding Mundane Given Names Used to Create Holding Names
An issue regarding holding names arose in reviewing a submission this month. A holding name occupies a special, purely administrative, status as stated clearly and concisely by Baldwin of Erebor, Laurel King of Arms:
If a submitted name is not registerable for one reason or another and the submitter has also submitted armory that is registerable, then either the armory must be returned for lack of a name or a holding name must be created in order to permit registration of the armory. If the submitted name form indicates that the submitter will accept a holding name, a holding name is usually created. The Administrative Handbook, section III.1.A, states, "Once registered, an item shall be protected until written notice of release is received by the Laurel Office from the registrant." This policy follows Corpora VI.C.3.b, which states:
Therefore, when a holding name is registered, a holding name is protected from conflict and will continue to be a registered item until the submitter submits a name change and has that name change registered. Upon registration of a name change, the holding name is automatically released. There is no charge for a name change from a holding name. The issue that has currently come under discussion is what elements of a holding name may be claimed by the submitter for use in an SCA name under the Grandfather Clause. Section III.1.A of the Administrative Handbook and section VI.C.3.b of Corpora, both cited above, guarantee protection of the registered name, in the complete form in which it is registered, until such time as the submitter shall request release of that item. Since holding names are automatically released upon registration of a submitted name, submission of a name change acts as a request for release of the holding name upon registration of the new submission. The Grandfather Clause is not addressed in these two documents. Rather it is covered in RfS II.5, which states in part (emphasis added):
Currently at issue are mundane name elements taken from submission forms in order to create a holding name, most notably elements used as given names in the holding name that is created. A holding name is often created using the given name the submitter has listed on their submission form. However, unlike with a given name submitted under the Legal Name allowance (RfS II.4), no documentation is normally provided to support that name as the submitter's legal given name. In most cases, the name listed is likely the name they commonly use. Often this is indeed the submitter's legal given name. In other cases, it may be a nickname or a middle name that they use as their common use name. Grandfathering these undocumented elements creates a situation where documentation requirements have been circumvented. Therefore, only elements in a holding name that were documented in the original submission will be eligible for reuse without new documentation via the Grandfather Clause. The alternative would be to either (1) not use any mundane name element from the submitter's form in a holding name unless it is accompanied by supporting documentation as required by the Legal Name Allowance, or (2) not register holding names. Either of these options would be unreasonably burdensome on submitters, the majority of whom do not encounter this situation. In the interest of balancing fair application of documentation standards for all submitters, versus ease of submission, we have chosen to limit grandfathering of individual elements from a holding name to those elements that were acceptably documented in the original submission. A submitter wishing to preserve that name element in a resubmission may submit documentation as specified by the Legal Name allowance and may register that item via that rule. This policy change replaces previous policy, including that covered in the "Holding Names" section of the March 1997 Cover Letter, and will go into effect at the January 2003 decision meeting. [Cover Letter for the 06/2002 LoAR] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.06 | Submitted as Anna Genevieve d'Ancyra, name elements are only grandfathered in their originally registered form. In her original submission, Ancyra was submitted as the name of a location in Turkey. As no evidence was presented and the College found none that Ancyra is a plausible French placename, the French byname d'Ancyra is not registerable. We have changed this element to the grandfathered form of Ancyra in order to register this name. [Anna Genevieve of Ancyra, 06/2002, A-Meridies] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.05 | Krista is her legal given name. Silverlock is her father's registered byname. [Krista Silverlock, 05/2002, A-An Tir] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.04 | Regarding the byname de Battenhelm, the LoI stated:
Name elements are only grandfathered to members of a person's immediate family (parent, sibling, child, spouse). These relationships are limited to legal relationships, not household "family" relationships. As no documentation has been provided that the submitter is legally related to Margarite, Erlichin, or Frances, he cannot claim use of de Battenhelm via the Grandfather Clause. As no documentation has been provided and none was found that any form of Battenhelm is a plausible period byname, it is not registerable. [Alcyoneus de Battenhelm, 04/2002, R-Calontir] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.02 | [Name change from Thorvaldr Gángläre Vakkerfjell] Name elements are only grandfathered in the position in which they were previously registered. Since the position of Vakkerfjell has changed, documentation should have been provided that it is a reasonable element in this location. The submitter's file shows Vakkerfjell documented only as a branch name. No evidence has been provided that a placename would come between a given name and a patronymic in Old Norse. Lacking such documentation, this combination is not registerable. [Thorvaldr Vakkerfjell Thórólfsson, 02/02, R-Outlands] |
| François la Flamme | 2001.12 | Submitted as Lilias MacLeòid, the submitter claimed MacLeòid under the Grandfather Clause, citing the registration of her husband Daimhín Mac Leóid (reg. 06/95). However, no documentation was included in the submission proving that Daimhín Mac Leóid is her husband. Without such support, she is not eligible for the Grandfather Clause.
In any case, MacLeòid is not registerable to her under the Grandfather Clause: The issue is the scope of the Grandfather Clause. The basic principle is that an item once registered remains so even if for some reason it ceases to be registerable. As is explained in the 22 February 1993 Cover Letter, we have extended the principle in two ways. First, we allow the original submitter to register further instances of the problematic element provided that they introduce no new violations of the rules; and secondly, we extend the allowance to the original submitter's nearest kin. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR December 1995, p. 20)There are two issues with the name Lilias MacLeòid that are not present in the name Daimhín Mac Leóid. The first is a mix of Gaelic and English. This is one weirdness, but such a mix is registerable. The second issue is the combination of a feminine given name used with a masculine form of a byname. As bynames were literal in Gaelic, this combination has not been registerable for some time. This registerability violation is not present in the name Daimhín Mac Leóid. Therefore, even if she presented proof of eligibility for the Grandfather Clause, this name would not be registerable. As the submitter allows any changes, we have changed the byname to the Anglicized form MacLeod. [Lilias MacLeod, 10/01, A-Trimaris] |
| Jaelle of Armida | 1998.08 | [Myfanwy of Cairnryan] Note: the byname is grandfathered to her as it is the registered byname of her mother. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR August 1998) |
| Jaelle of Armida | 1998.06 | [Drusilla of the Drunken Archers] The submitter's legal sibling, Simon de la Palma de Mallorca had the household name Drunken Archers registered to him 8/89. Therefore, the usage is grandfathered to her. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR, June 1998) |
| Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year) | 1995.12 | This was a very difficult decision. The issue is the scope of the Grandfather Clause. The basic principle is that an item once registered remains so even if for some reason it ceases to be registerable. As is explained in the 22 February 1993 Cover Letter, we have extended the principle in two ways. First, we allow the original submitter to register further instances of the problematic element provided that they introduce no new violations of the rules; and secondly, we extend the allowance to the original submitter's nearest kin. In this case the question is whether Roxane Blackfeather violates the present rules and precedents in any way that Ruaidhri Blackfeather does not.
Unfortunately, the answer depends on how one thinks of the latter name. (1) One might attempt to justify Blackfeather as a lingua anglica byname, but then one would have to show that it fits the semantic pattern of Irish bynames. If one adopts this view, then the present submission has essentially the same problem: it hasn't been demonstrated that Blackfeather is a reasonable (translation of a) byname in any period culture in which the name Roxane is likely to have been used. On this view the Grandfather Clause applies. (2) Alternatively, one might take Blackfeather to be a modern spelling of a hypothetical Middle English byname analogous to the attested Whitphether and Blakhat (J. Jönsjö, Middle English Nicknames); in that case the problem is the incompatible orthographies of Irish Ruaidhri and English Blackfeather, and the name would probably be registerable (if not particularly plausible) in the form Rory Blackfeather. On this view the only problem with Ruaidhri Blackfeather is a superficial incompatibility in the way the name is written, while Roxane Blackfeather suffers from a fundamental incompatibility in the nature of its elements; this is a new problem, and the Grandfather Clause does not apply. When Ruaidhri Blackfeather was submitted on the 5/90 Eastern LoI, the examples from Jönsjö were in fact used to justify the byname. This served to place both names in the British Isles in period, and at that time no further justification was necessary. Thus, both the original justification and the probable registerability today of the form Rory Blackfeather suggest that the second interpretation is the sounder of the two. Add Keystone's statement that the submitter actually wants a name from around the time of Alexander the Great, and we find it preferable to return the name with suggestions. Single names were probably the norm in Hellenistic culture, but bynames certainly were not unknown. We suggest that she consider a locative byname: they seem to have been recorded relatively often, and they are comparatively easy to form. Classically they are often adjectives, as in Roxane Persike `Roxane [the] Persian' and Roxane Kyzikene `Roxane of Cyzicus' (literally `the Cyzicene'). (Alexander's wife was a Bactrian, so Roxane Baktria is probably ill-advised.) In the New Testament one finds similar names with the definite article, e.g., Maria hê Magdalênê `Maria the Magdalene'; we do not know whether this usage was also found in Alexander's day. Simple descriptive adjectives are probably also appropriate, e.g., Roxane he Kale `Roxane the Fair'. (Note that all of the final es are syllabic; they more or less rhyme with way.) The lady lives in Pittsburgh; we suspect that there is someone at one of the universities there who can help with the grammatical details once she has an idea of what she'd like. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR December 1995, p. 20) |
| Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year) | 1994.08 | Though the use of the apostrophe to indicate a possessive is post-period, the use is grandfathered to the Barony, which has several other phoenix's parts registered. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR August 1994, p. 2) |
| Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 1st year) | 1994.05 | [Registering Golden Dolphin Herald.] To borrow from Baron Bruce's words in the March 1993 LoAR and apply them to this case, the title is taken from the Order of the Golden Dolphin, already registered to Atlantia. It is an ancient and honorable tradition to name heraldic officers after orders: Garter and Toison d'Or (Golden Fleece) are well-known medieval examples, while the classic Society example is (ahem) Laurel. [5/94, p.3] |
| Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 1st year) | 1994.02 | This does not appear to follow any period exemplars of which we are aware, nor does it match in style their other "Dragon's [part]" proposals. Order names in period seem to have been based on tangible objects (such as the Order of the Golden Fleece) or on abstract concepts which members of the Order embody (such as the Legion of Honor.) The Order of the Dragon's Dream doesn't appear to fit either of these categories. [2/94, p.19] |
| Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane | 1988.08 | While the locative would not normally pass under the current rules, there is overwhelming precedent for allowing spouses and children of those with registered bynames to use those bynames, even if they are no longer "legal". (LoAR Aug 88, p. 15) |
| Wilhelm von Schlüssel | 1981.11.30 | You may not have a name consisting only of one word. I have therefore added N. to the currently registered name, as a nickname. Normally we do not register nicknames but since he was knighted with the name, I will allow it. WVS [57] [LoAR 30 Nov 81], p. 4 |
| Wilhelm von Schlüssel | 1981.09.15 | This [name] is not acceptable under current rules. If he can show that this submission was submitted several years ago and was lost by the [kingdom] College of Heralds, then I will accept the name under a grandfather clause. WVS [52] [LoAR 15 Sep 81], p. 5 |
| Award/Order Names | ||
| François la Flamme | 2004.01 | [Order name Order of Arquites Australes] Submitted as Order of Arquites Australis, based on the documentation, this order name basically means 'Order of Southern Bowmen'. No documentation was presented and none was found that an adjective meaning 'Southern' would have appeared in an order name in period. However, the barony has previously registered Order of the Lux Australis (registered in November 1993), Order of the Flos Australis (registered April 1988), and Order of the Astrum Australis (registered March 1985). Roughly translated, these order names mean 'Order of the Southern Light', 'Order of the Southern Flower', and 'Order of the Southern Star', respectively. Therefore, this basic construction is grandfathered to the barony so long as the noun in the order name is within the rather wide group of 'light', 'flower', and 'star'. [Citadel of the Southern Pass, Barony of the, 01/2004, A-Outlands] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.11 | [Order name Order of the Sable Arrows] The order names Order of the Sable Chevronels of Mons Tonitrus and Order of the Sable Harps of Mons Tonitrus were registered to this barony in January 1991. Therefore, the construction Order of the Sable [charge (plural)] is grandfathered to this branch. [Mons Tonitrus, Barony of, 11/2003, A-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.08 | While, as a new submission, this would probably conflict with the Swedish Order of the Seraphim, the conflict is grandfathered to the group, as Seraph Pursuivant was registered to the West in April 1981 for this barony's use, and transferred to Caid in August 1987. (In the past, heraldic titles for branches were required to be registered to their kingdom.) [Angels, Barony of the, 08/2003 LoAR, A-Caid] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.05 | [Award of the Bright Leaf] The registration of Bright Leaf Herald (registered in April 1985 to Atlantia) does not grandfather Bright Leaf for use in an order name. While we have evidence of heraldic titles being taken from order names, no evidence has yet been found of order names being derived from heraldic titles. Therefore, this name must be supported by documentation showing that Bright Leaf is plausible as an order name in period. To address this issue, Atlantia provided the following information from Kwellend-Njal:
However, as noted in another return in this LoAR (Artemisia, Kingdom of; Order of the Glorious Gryphon), we only have support for Glorious as an adjective describing Mary, the mother of Jesus, in an order name. Lacking evidence that a word meaning 'illustrious, glorious, splendid' would plausibly be used in an order name in period to describe a leaf or a piece of paper, Bright is not registerable in an order name. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 05/2003, R-Atlantia] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.02 | [Order name The Sigillum Coronae] This order name was submitted under the Grandfather Clause based on the order name The Sigillum Principissae, which was registered to Drachenwald in January 1993. However, 'crown' and 'princess' are not similar items. The word 'princess' is a title used by royalty. No evidence was provided and none was found that 'crown' was used as a title by royalty in period. Lacking such evidence, this order name is not registerable.
Metron Ariston provided information about parallels for the structure in the registered order name The Sigillum Principissae:
One of these forms would be a registerable parallel for the construction seen in the registered order name The Sigillum Principissae. [Drachenwald, Kingdom of, 02/2003 LoAR, R-Drachenwald] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.01 | [Award of the Rising Star of Ansteorra] This submission is an appeal of the return of Award of the Rising Star in September 2001, which stated:
Ansteorra has pointed out that Circle of the Ascending Star was registered to the Kingdom of Ansteorra in April 1981 and that the construction used in Award of the Rising Star of Ansteorra is, therefore, grandfathered to them. This submission raised considerable discussion regarding how the Grandfather Clause applies to order names. This issue is most often raised in regards to adjectives used in order names. Some recent examples include:
While use of an adjective, such as Argent or Dragon's, that does not change from order name to order name is the most common application of the Grandfather Clause in order names, we have also grandfathered specific construction types. Some examples include:
In the first example, the construction Order of the [type of stone] Chalice is grandfathered to Gleann Abhann. In the second example, Order of the [type of gemstone] is grandfathered to Atlantia. Award of the Rising Star of Ansteorra parallels Circle of the Ascending Star in a manner similar to these examples. Given these previous registrations of grandfathering order name constructions within a narrow construction type, this order name is registerable to Ansteorra. [Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 01/03, A-Ansteorra] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.12 | [Order name Order of the Black Pheon] Submitted as Order of the Sable Pheon, no documentation was presented and none was found for use of heraldic tinctures in order names. Lacking such evidence, this order name is not registerable.
Meradudd Cethin's article "Project Ordensnamen OR What do you mean that the Anceint[sic] and Venerable Order of the Most Holy and Righteous Wombat's Toenail isn't period?" (http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/names/order/) dates the order name Le Cordon Bleu to 1198 in France. This shows evidence of common color names, such as bleu, used in French order names rather than the heraldic tincture azure. Since pheon is the form found in both English and French, this order name would be registerable using Black Pheon or Pheon Noir instead of Sable Pheon. As the kingdom allows any changes and notes that the meaning is most important, we have changed this order name to Order of the Black Pheon in order to register the name. During commentary, it was noted that the Kingdom of Atenveldt registered Sable Staff Pursuivant in April 1981. Therefore, they have the construction Sable [charge] grandfathered for heraldic titles. However, constructions are not grandfathered across types of items that may be registered, such as order names or household names. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002, A-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.12 | [Order of the Marble Chalice] No documentation was presented and none was found that Order of the Marble Chalice follows a pattern used for period order names. However, Gleann Abhann has registered Order of the Onyx Chalice (registered in September 1998) and Order of the Garnet Chalice (registered in September 1998). Since both marble and onyx are types of stone, Order of the Marble Chalice follows the same construction pattern as Order of the Onyx Chalice and so is registerable via the Grandfather Clause. [Gleann Abhann, Principality of, 12/2002, A-Meridies] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.12 | [Order name La Ordern de la Luz de las Estrellas] No documentation was presented and none was found that La Ordern de la Luz de las Estrellas, 'The Order of the Light of the Stars', follows a pattern of order names used in period as required by RfS III.2.b.ii. Lacking evidence that La Ordern de la Luz de las Estrellas follows a construction used for order names in period, it is not registerable.
The LoI noted the order name Order of the Light of Atenveldt registered in April of 1981 to the Kingdom of Atenveldt. Since items are only grandfathered in their originally registered form, the English Order of the Light of Atenveldt cannot be used via the Grandfather Clause to support the submitted Spanish La Ordern de la Luz de las Estrellas. Additionally, Order of the Light of Atenveldt uses the construction Order of the Light of [branch name] which does not parallel an order name meaning 'The Order of the Light of the Stars'. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002, R-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.12 | [Order name Le Ordre de le Artisan de Soleil.] No documentation was presented and none was found that Le Ordre de le Artisan de Soleil follows a pattern of order names used in period as required by RfS III.2.b.ii. Lacking evidence that Le Ordre de le Artisan de Soleil follows a construction used for order names in period, it is not registerable.
This order name was submitted as meaning 'The Order of the Artisan of the Sun' in French. In fact, the phrase de Soleil is grammaticaly incorrect. It means 'of Sun', not 'of the Sun'. The phrase meaning 'of the Sun' is du Soleil, not de Soleil. The Kingdom of Atenveldt registered the Order of the Fleur de Soleil in September 1984. In comparing that order name to the currently submitted name, Artisan is not like Fleur. An artisan and a flower are dramatically different entities. Therefore, the current submission is not registerable under the Grandfather Clause. The LoI also mentioned the Principality of the Sun's order name Order of the Esprit de Soleil (registered in January 1984). As this name was registered to the Principality of the Sun, not the Kingdom of Atenveldt, it is the Principality of the Sun, not the Kingdom of Atenveldt, that has this construction grandfathered to them. Moreover, "artisan" and "spirit" are also dramatically different entities. Therefore, the registered Order of the Esprit de Soleil could not be used to support an order name Le Ordre de le Artisan de Soleil via the Grandfather Clause. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002, R-Atenveldt] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.02 | [Order of the Dragon's Steel] The order names Order of the Dragon's Jewel (registered August 1987) and Order of the Dragon's Pride (registered May 1988) are registered to Drachenwald. Therefore, the construction Order of the Dragon's X is grandfathered to them so long as whatever X is falls within the rather wide span between Jewel and Pride. Shakespeare's MacBeth (Act 1, Scene 2) includes the lines:
For brave Macbeth-well he deserves that name-Disdaining Fortune, with his brandish'd steel,Which smoked with bloody execution,Like valour's minion carved out his passageTill he faced the slave;This gives evidence of steel being used to refer to a sword. A sword could conceivably be part of a dragon's horde. Therefore, this order name is registerable. [Drachenwald, Kingdom of, 02/02, A-Drachenwald] |
| François la Flamme | 2002.02 | [Order of the Dragon's Bowle] The construction Dragon's X has not been documented to period. However, the order names Order of the Dragon's Jewel (registered August 1987) and Order of the Dragon's Pride (registered May 1988) are registered to Drachenwald. Therefore, the construction Order of the Dragon's X is grandfathered to them so long as whatever X is falls within the rather wide span between Jewel and Pride. A bowl (especially if it were gold or silver) is an object which could conceivably fall into the same category as a jewel, as being part of a dragon's horde. Therefore, this order name is registerable. [Drachenwald, Kingdom of, 02/02, A-Drachenwald] |
| François la Flamme | 2001.12 | [Order of the Opal] No evidence was presented and none was found of period order names based on gemstones. As Atlantia has registered the Order of the Pearl, this construction is grandfathered to them. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 12/01, A-Atlantia] |
| Elsbeth Anne Roth | 2000.08 | [Order of the Argent Slipper] Meridies already has several order names of the type Argent X, so this particular use is grandfathered to the Kingdom. [Meridies, Kingdom of, 08/00, A-Meridies] |
| Jaelle of Armida | 1998.02 | [Middle, Kingdom of. Order name for Order of the Greenwood Company] Note: Order of the Red Company is registered to the Middle Kingdom, and therefore this usage is grandfathered to them. Normally we would not register a name with two designators. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR February 1998, p. 8) |
| Heraldic Titles | ||
| François la Flamme | 2003.08 | While, as a new submission, this would probably conflict with the Swedish Order of the Seraphim, the conflict is grandfathered to the group, as Seraph Pursuivant was registered to the West in April 1981 for this barony's use, and transferred to Caid in August 1987. (In the past, heraldic titles for branches were required to be registered to their kingdom.) [Angels, Barony of the, 08/2003 LoAR, A-Caid] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.06 | [Heraldic title Gonfanon Pursuivant] No documentation was submitted for this name at all. The LoI simply stated that this title was: "previously registered to the West and released in December '93. We now wish to re-register [it]."
Items that are released and resubmitted fall into the category of new submissions. The Grandfather Clause does not apply since the items are no longer registered. Such items must be redocumented when they are resubmitted, just as if they were a new submission. The missing documenation was provided by multiple members of the College. Crescent states:
As documentation was found for this submission, it may be registered. [West, Kingdom of, 06/2003 LoAR, A-West] |
| François la Flamme | 2003.05 | [Heraldic title Jade Dragon Herald] The LoI stated that "This is a Heraldic title created from an Order named for the Jade Dragon token given to it's [sic] recipients." However, Atlantia does not have an order named "Order of the Jade Dragon" registered. Therefore, Jade Dragon is not grandfathered to them for use in a heraldic title and must be documented. Kraken notes:
Lacking evidence that Jade would have been used as an adjective to describe an item in period, it is not registerable. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 05/2003 LoAR, R-Atlantia] |
| François la Flamme | 2001.10 | [Sable Ferret Herald] This title is being returned for use of Sable in a heraldic title.
[Sable Roundel Herald] While heraldic titles of the type <tincture> <charge> are no longer generally acceptable unless the tincture is specified with an everyday word, Ansteorra has already several heralds' titles of the type Sable <charge>. [Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 06/00, A-Ansteorra]As Trimaris has no heraldic titles including Sable already registered, they cannot call on the Grandfather Clause. As such, this submission must be returned. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 10/01, R-Trimaris] |
| Elsbeth Anne Roth | 2000.06 | [Sable Roundel Herald] While heraldic titles of the type <tincture> <charge> are no longer generally acceptable unless the tincture is specified with an everyday word, Ansteorra has already several heralds' titles of the type Sable <charge>. [Ansteorra, Kingdom of, 06/00, A-Ansteorra] |