[ANSTHRLD] [Fwd: Heraldry announcement for Commentary

[kevinkeary at aol.com]

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.