[ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary
logiosophia at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 10 15:24:51 PDT 2008
The Laurel as a Charge, Award and Office confusion reminds me of an 'Order of the Stick' ("Level Up, Level Down" if memory serves) strip about the vastly different ways "level" was used in D&D. We're stuck with it unless major changes occur.
In my opinion, reversing a 40+ year Precedent is a major change.
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, kevinkeary at aol.com <kevinkeary at aol.com> wrote:
From: kevinkeary at aol.com <kevinkeary at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary
To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 4:15 PM
>Thoughts on not keeping the requirement in territorial arms:
>1) If recognizing group arms, and members of a group, was absolutely
>then the required laurel wreath should be required on group badges as
>that the members of the groups are recognized as members of a
>and not confused with a private household or person. Of course, this
>create great confusion in the minds of newcomers as to who is a Laurel
>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
Of course, that leaves the issue of founding ex-baron(esse)s, who could
have little-bitty laurels in the arms carried in canton.
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Heralds