The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
Administrative Precedents
There should be a CD between three stalks of barley and a garb. (Siobhan Chantoiseau de Longpont sur Orges, November, 1992, pg. 5)
The torii is still permitted in Society heraldry, due to its modern familiarity among Occidentals (for instance, the word is found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and its valid reblazon as a Japanese gateway. However, since no heraldic difference can normally be obtained from regional drawing style, we grant no difference between a Japanese gateway (torii) and a standard heraldic gate --- any more than we grant difference between an arch and a dolmen. (Ihashi Hidezo, June, 1993, pg. 22)
[Two towers, between them a pair of swinging doors] The charge ...was blazoned as a gateway on the LOI. The gateway is a Society invention, defined the arms of the Shire of Stormgate. As such, it does not appear to follow the medieval exemplars of gates. We will blazon the charge by parts for this submission, but do not intend to accept it in the future. (Rian MacFinn, August, 1993, pg. 8)
[A sinister gore argent and a bordure ermine] The lack of contrast between the gore and the bordure causes them to blend together, reducing the identifiability of both. It's true, as Lord Crescent notes, that since contrast of each charge is measured against the field, they cannot have good contrast with one another. But, if anything, that argues against any use of a gore with a bordure whatsoever.
This case might have been acceptable had the bordure been, say, Or; there would still have been enough contrast to allow its distinction from the gore. But the contrast between argent and ermine is exactly the same as between argent and argent goutty sable: nonexistent. We cannot concede that the two charges will be distinguished from any distance. This must therefore be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Khasar of the Keshik, November, 1992, pp. 15-16)
When considering a full beast or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge. (Crown Principality of Avacal, September, 1993, pg. 5)
[(Fieldless) A narwhale hauriant embowed argent] This is the fieldless version of [the submittor's] current device, ...Per pale vert and sable, a narwhale haurient embowed argent. Several commenters called conflict against [Sable, a whale haurient argent]. The same conflict call was made against his device, during its submission. Lord Laurel explicitly ruled the two armories to be clear of conflict: "There's a CVD for the field and a CVD for haurient embowed versus haurient." [LoAR of May, 1991] Exactly the same point count applies to the badge.
I happen to disagree with that ruling: I don't think there's a CD between haurient embowed and haurient, and I won't be granting it in future. However, I also believe that, given such an explicit ruling, in good conscience we have to call [the submittor's] badge clear ...The Grandfather Clause does apply to conflict, as well as stylistic problems; the badge conflicts no more (and no less) than the device, and if Gest may display the latter, it would be unreasonable to tell him he may not display the former. (Gest Grimsson, September, 1992, pg. 7)
There was some question as to whether the released name of a disbanded group could be used in a new personal name. Such new names must start from scratch, but the original documentation of the dead SCA branch might still be consulted. (Sebastian of Ventbarre, September, 1992, pg. 35)
[Change of of the Silverdawn to of Silverdawn] Silverdawn does not appear to be a validly constructed placename, and should not be used as though it were. The Grandfather Clause does not apply to this case.
The submitter's forms stated that "Laurel ruled in the LoAR of April 1984 that `Silverdawn' was an acceptable made-up place name." No such statement is found in the LoAR of 14 April 84, when the current name was registered; the name was simply approved, in its entirety. Of the Silverdawn might be considered an epithet, or (as Lord Obelisk suggests) refer to the name of a ship. Dropping the article, however, makes Silverdawn a placename --- but no evidence has been presented that such a placename is plausible. The Grandfather Clause permits the submitter to use of the Silverdawn, as currently registered; to change that name requires documentation of the new meaning's acceptability. He might consider submitting Richard Silverdawn. (Richard of the Silverdawn, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[MacFlandry] The submitter ...noted the registered names of Robert MacFlandry of Dundee and Duncan MacFlandry. However, those names were registered back in 1981; both our naming standards and the quality of our name resources have increased since then. ...The submitter is blood kin to neither Baron Robert nor Baron Duncan, so the Grandfather Clause doesn't apply here; the registration of their names a decade ago does not oblige us to register the current submission. (Lyulf MacFlandry, September, 1992, pg. 43)
[On a pale, a <charge>, overall a laurel wreath] Our general policy (LoAR of July 92, p.20), based on period practice, is that only ordinaries (or similarly simple charges, such as roundels) may be counterchanged across ordinaries. The laurel wreath is not a simple charge, and may not be counterchanged here. While we were tempted to be lenient in this case (considering the arms of the Shire's parent Kingdom contain a laurel wreath counterchanged across a pale), I decided that making an exception here would open a larger can of worms than I could contemplate with equanimity. (Shire of Blackmoor Keep, October, 1992, pg. 28)
One of this month's submissions ...raised some discussion in the commentary about the Grandfather Clause and its scope --- specifically, whether the Clause applies to matters of conflict, as well as of style. The Clause has applied to conflict in the past, and I believe it should continue to do so.
In its purest form, the Grandfather Clause simply states that, once an item is registered, it cannot be unregistered. It's one of the few restrictions laid on us by Corpora: "Any item once registered shall remain registered unless the owner requests its release, and shall be accepted in the Society for the person for whom it was registered without regard to changes in the rules and standards applied to future submissions, or to the membership status of the owner." (Corpora IV.C.3.b) The reasons why an item may no longer be acceptable are irrelevant; once registered, it remains registered.
From this basic form, the Grandfather Clause has been extended in a number of directions. For instance, we've applied it to further submissions from the same individual. The rationale has been that, if the submitter could still use the original problematic armory, he should be able to use another armory with the same problem.
Thus, to offer a concrete example, when the Barony of Caer Anterth changed their device in Oct 91, they were able to register a green trimout on a blue field. Even though that usage violated our current Rules, their original device (registered 1980) already had a green trimount on a blue field; the Grandfather Clause was specifically invoked to permit the usage on their new device. Both armories were equally violations of the Rules; if we'd permit them to continue to use the old device, in fairness we should permit them to register the new.
The Clause has also been extended to cover submissions from close relatives of the original submitter. I believe the policy began with submitters' children, with much the same rationale as above: after all, we encourage the use of brisures (e.g. labels and such), as a fine example of period heraldic practice. Thus, Stephan of Bellatrix could register his name Sept 91, even though the byname implies extra-terrestrial origin --- for his father's name (Paul of Bellatrix) is already registered, and the Grandfather Clause applies to the children of the original submitter. The Clause eventually came to cover siblings and spouses, as well as children.
Finally, the Clause has been extended to cover questions of conflict, as well as style. The rationale is the same in each case: if we'd allow a client to continue to use a registered armory (that would conflict under current Rules), in fairness we should permit him to register a new armory with the exact same conflict problem. The device change of Eliahu ben Itzhak [December 1992] is as clear an example as one could wish.
This is not a new policy; we've applied the Clause to conflict problems in the past. Indeed, it was so often taken for granted that the Clause wasn't explicitly mentioned in the LoAR; one must read the pertinent LOI and commentary to know that the Clause was applied. An example I recall is the submission of Cherie Ruadh MhicRath of Locksley (LoAR of Aug 86), Vert, on a tree eradicated argent a cat statant guardant gules. Even under the Rules at the time, this would have conflicted with the mundane arms of Morewood, Vert, an oak tree argent fructed Or. But the device was based on the arms of the submitter's husband, Ioseph of Locksley the Rhymer, Vert, a tree eradicated argent; Laurel's notes in the submitter's file show that he considered the Grandfather Clause to apply to the conflict with Morewood.
There have been other examples involving conflict. When the Barony of the Angels changed their badge to a device despite mundane conflict, it was noted: "I don't think there is any question that the conflict is covered by the beneficent Mr. Clause." [BoE, 6 April 86] Then too, when the present Rules were adopted, many of the fielded badges in the A&O (which, when registered, needed only 1 point from mundane armory) were suddenly in technical conflict. They weren't unregistered, however. Once registered, they remained registered, despite the conflicts our changed standards introduced -- they could even be promoted to devices, and sometimes were. That's the Grandfather Clause in a nutshell.
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]
Finally, the Clause is limited to the original submitter and his closest kin: children, siblings, and spouse. Real kin, not "SCA kin"; the latter are a matter of persona, and the College does not permit persona stories to influence its decisions. The intent is to restrict the possible application of the Clause; otherwise, anyone with a disallowed (but desirable) registration could end up with 20,000 "cousins". Real-world kin are not only more limited in number, but verifiable --- and not easily subject to change afterward.
To sum up: The Grandfather Clause prevents us from retroactively returning submissions. If someone registers an item that later is shown to have a problem, he may continue to use the item. By extension, he may register new items with the same problem (but no other); and so may his closest relations (but no others). The nature of the problem isn't limited, by either Corpora or the Rules (II.5, VII.8); the Clause applies to both style and conflict. (22 February, 1993 Cover Letter (December, 1992 LoAR), pp. 2-3)
[Or, on a mullet of six points sable, a griffin segreant contourny Or] This submission is a textbook example of why the Grandfather Clause applies to problems of conflict, as well as of style. The new device has the same conflicts (e.g. Ashton, Or, a mullet sable) as the previous device [Or, on a mullet of six points sable, a griffin sejant to sinister erect, grasping in its dexter talon three arrows inverted and in its sinister talon a paintbrush and palette, all Or]); if he could bear the latter, he should be able to bear the former. See the [22 February] cover letter [above] for a more complete discussion of the Grandfather Clause. (Eliahu ben Itzhak, December, 1992, pg. 12)
[Wolfgang of Flame] The byname does not seem to be acceptable style. The submitter is from the Barony of the Flame; Wolfgang of the Flame would thus be acceptable. Following the example of his Baron and Baroness, he could also be Wolfgang Flame. But just as those nobles do not style themselves Baron and Baroness of Flame, so is his submitted byname incorrect. As he forbade any changes to his name, this must be returned. (Wolfgang of Flame, January, 1993, pg. 31)
[On an annulet of flame sable an annulet Or] This submission engendered considerable discussion at the Symposium; many felt that the badge was post-period in style. It was decided that the Grandfather Clause would permit the Barony to continue to use their "flaming laurel wreath" [On an annulet of flame Or a laurel wreath vert], but not necessarily any flaming charge. (The analogy was that of the East Kingdom, whose arms contain a laurel wreath fimbriated; the Grandfather Clause wouldn't permit them to register an elephant fimbriated on the strength of that registration.) This badge therefore had to be decided on its own merits. (Barony of Wiesenfeuer, June, 1993, pg. 3)
The Rules for Submission allow the invocation of the Grandfather Clause only for cases of blood relationship; self, parent/child, husband/wife or siblings. SCA relationships such as households and knight/squire cannot invoke the Grandfather Clause since they are excluded from its provisions. (Keridwen of Aaron Isles, September, 1993, pg. 24)
[A chevron rompu between three grenades vs. a chevron between three fireballs fired] There's a CD for making the chevron rompu, but not another for type of secondary charge. (Ragnar of Moonschadowe, September, 1992, pg. 41)
[A gurges vs. five annulets one within the other] As seen from the examples in Parker (p.299), Woodward (p.193), and Papworth (p.1122), a set of concentric annulets is simply an alternate method of drawing a gurges or whirlpool [therefore there is not a CD between them]. (Iago al Hasan, September, 1992, pg. 39)
The spiral does not appear to be an acceptable charge; a previous attempt at registration (under the blazon gurges couped) was returned Oct 90. (Patricia Philomena de Saint Clemont, December, 1992, pg. 21)
It has previously been ruled (LoAR of Oct 90) that the gurges may not be couped- "Whirlpools or gurges are used as a single, throughout charge on a field." (Amanda of Coldcastle, July, 1993, pg. 13)