[ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary
kevinkeary at aol.com
kevinkeary at aol.com
Thu Jul 10 14:15:21 PDT 2008
Etienne said:
>Thoughts on not keeping the requirement in territorial arms:
>1) If recognizing group arms, and members of a group, was absolutely
critical,
>then the required laurel wreath should be required on group badges as
well. So
>that the members of the groups are recognized as members of a
territorial group
>and not confused with a private household or person. Of course, this
would
>create great confusion in the minds of newcomers as to who is a Laurel
and who
>is just a member of a group.
Actually, it's more than that. I remember a newly-created Laurel Queen
of Arms lamenting the fact that she couldn't wear her own badge of
office because she wasn't a Mistress of the Laurel.
If the Laurel Queen can't wear something with a Laurel on it when she
isn't a Laurel, then NOBODY but the embodiment of a territorial branch
can.
Of course, that leaves the issue of founding ex-baron(esse)s, who could
have little-bitty laurels in the arms carried in canton.
More information about the Heralds
mailing list