[MR] Re: Queen's arms

[Elaine Koogler]

Speaking as a herald who was around when the first change was made in the
Queen's arms (removing the chapelet and replacing it with the three
roses...which made it more heraldically correct and less complex), I have to
say that the device is much more pleasing, over and above the unintentional
pun, minus the ermine spots.  Putting the spots on it makes it 'way too
complex, in my opinion.

I know that a Queen should be able to have whatever arms she wants, but this
is an idea which will lead to chaos.  Can you imagine what would happen if
each and every Queen decided to modify the arms to suit Her own personal
taste?  I know that the proposed change would take us back to the original
arms, but I do not believe, in this case, that that is a good thing.
Therefore, IMO, the arms should remain as they are.

Kiri
   (former Triton PH)
----- Original Message -----

> Here here, Sir Janos. Let the reigning queen deside what she wants to wea=
> r.
> Think about it, the Queen's device is the Queen's. If she does not like i=
> t, she does not have to wear it. She is the one directly put upon if some=
> one wants to make the pun to her face. Heaven help that individual if I o=
> r any other who takes their oath to the Kingdom seriously.
>
> The old device is the Traditional one. Did the US Marine Corps change the=
> ir device when naughty Navy Sailors started calling it a Ball and Chicken=
> ? Think not. They stuck with their traditional Globe, Anchor, and Eagle. =
> Would Ohio State change their symbol, the Buckeye (Whatever the hell that=
>  is.) simply because they are not The University of Michigan. (well maybe=
> ) Tradition holds a lot more value to me, and throughout history to other=
> s, then political correctness in my opinion.
>