Copyright © 1995 - Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
An examination of a number of mundane sources indicates that there does not seem to be a clearly defined depiction for a "gargoyle" in heraldry, despite the notes in the Pictorial Dictionary (p. 59). (LoAR 27 Aug 89, p. 21)
Evidence for period use of the gondola prow in a fixed form ... has convinced us that the gondola prow is identifiable as such and therefore legitimate for use in the Society. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 3)
Although [the principal herald] blazoned the gussets as "debased", long Society precedent indicates there is no such heraldic charge (gussets themselves are a bit controversial as a period charge). (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 19)
The distinction between the gore and gusset seems to be more a distinction than a difference and many heraldic authors (for example, Woodward, p. 689) consider the two to be the same charge. (LoAR 26 Mar 89, p. 15)
The ... charges overlying the gore are a practice that has previously been disallowed: neither flaunches nor gores seem to have been surmounted in this manner in period. (LoAR 21 May 89, p. 24)
[Two gores overall] The gores give a non-period effect of paper shades drawn away from a diorama or diptych and are extremely three dimensional in effect. (LoAR 18 Jun 89, p. 13)
[Two different charges and a gore] While [a commenter] is correct that the gore is usually considered by definition a secondary charge since it issues from the flanks of the shield, in spirit this is "slot machine heraldry". (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 21)
Gores by definition are limited to two in number and rest in the flanks of a field. Also, long-standing Society precedent disallows fimbriation or voiding of gores. (LoAR 28 May 90, p. 21)
[Argent, two gussets gules vs. Gules, a pall argent] Regrettably, this is in conflict.... The removal of the inverted triangular portion of the field from the top of the device does not create enough visual difference to carry the two devices truly clear. (LoAR 17 Jun 90, p. 17)
The lower portion of the badge is derived directly from the device of [one of the two submittors], passed prior to the current ban on natural lightning flashes, and so we felt it should be covered by the "Grandfather Clause". (LoAR 28 Dec 86, p. 1) (See also: LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
There seemed to be some confusion on the part of some commentors between the "Hardship Clause" and the "Grandfather Clause". The former is designed to aid submittors who have through no fault of their own had submissions delayed for a period of time in which the rules have changed.... The Grandfather Clause, on the other hand, protects from future rules changes armory which has already been registered. Whatever my personal feelings on the subject, there have been many rulings in the past to indicate that, where a badge uses the primary charge(s) from a device which would not be licit were they submitted for the first time today, the badge gains an associative protection under the Grandfather Clause. (LoAR 28 Feb 87, p. 20)
[Quarterly Or and vert, in bend sinister a mullet of four points within a laurel wreath and a castle, all Or] This simply adds the laurel wreath to their already registered badge. [The principal herald] has invoked the "Grandfather Clause" and, while we do not feel comfortable in accepting the obvious marshalling here, we have to agree that it would not be consistent or just for us to return the device in this case.... Given the original registration, we have no choice but to accept the modification proposed here. (LoAR 19 Dec 87, p. 3)
[The] name was registered originally in 1973.... It would not pass today. However, it is our feeling that the name as such is grandfathered and the change to make it more grammatical is "offense neutral". (LoAR Jun 88, P. 3)
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)
While there was some disagreement in the College on the legitimacy of fimbriating a cross crosslet, there was a considerable body of thought which held that this badge was covered by the "Grandfather Clause" since it was a simplification of one previously registered to the submittor.... After some soul-searching, we were compelled to agree. (LoAR 24 Dec 88, p. 2)
The "Grandfather Clause" ... serves two functions. It guarantees to a submittor that, once his name or armory has been registered, it cannot be "unregistered" because of changes in the rules which may occur subsequent to that registration.... As an extension of this principle, [it] has also come to mean that a person whose registered name and/or armoury exists in contravention of the current stylistic rules may register new items which contain all or part of the previously registered material, even though the submissions would not be acceptable were they wholly submitted for the first time today. This permission has sometimes been extended to the immediate family (typically the spouse or offspring) of the original registrant.... However, the "Grandfather Clause" does NOT insulate a submission involving grandfathered material against conflict.... Note that the standards for conflict which will be applied are always the current standards unless the submission is being made specifically under the terms of a "grace period" declared after a change in conflict standards. The "Grandfather Clause" may only be used to exempt submissions in whole or in part from current standards of style. (CL 27 Mar 89, pp. 1-2)
Under both the old and new rules, this [voided complex] charge is "grandfathered" since it derives directly from her registered device. (LoAR 26 Nov 89, p. 14)
Note that the change is merely to translate her already registered (and now unregisterable) epithet into Norse. This is already registered to her and the translation is less immediately problematic for most members of the Society. Therefore, it seems that this is a reasonable use of the Grandfather Clause. Certainly, it has been similarly interpreted in the past. (LoAR 31 Dec 89, p. 12)
[Flintlock pistol] The pistol is period (just...). (LoAR Jul 88, p. 1)
In referring to an "off-center" gyronny in [a] return ... in February, 1982, Master Wilhelm noted "this sort of division is not heraldic". Whilst this referred to a gyronny of two colours, the general principle holds true. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 9-10)
Gyronny from any point other than the center of a field or charge is definitely an anomaly, that is the reason that the visual complexity added by the use of colours has been limited (nowhere was it ever claimed that gyronny from the edge per se is "banned").... We are still of the opinion that the use of gyronny from the edge on charges is extremely poor style. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)
Gyronny normally has one of its lines directly in fess. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 7)
A charge gyronny of two metals is not registerable under either the old rules or the new. (LoAR 25 Feb 90, p. 22)
Introduction and Index to Precedents of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane