[MR] Unfortunate Tidings regarding the Queen's Arms change

[Craig Levin]

Richard:

> Greetings from Richard,
> 
> Or, heaven forefend, we could actually use a period heraldry practice and
> encourage each crown modify the applicable arms to mark their own reign if they
> so choose.

Offhand, I can't think of a monarch in period who changed the
arms of his dominions "on a whim". The arms of England-Gules
three lions passant guardant in pale Or-didn't change after John.
The arms of France undergo a single shift from Azure semy-de-lys
Or to Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or during the Hundred Years War,
presumably a budget cutting measure <grin>. About the only arms
of dominion that undergo a steady shift throughout the period are
those of Portugal, which go from:

Argent five inescutcheons 1, 3, and 1 Azure platy
Argent five inescutcheons 1, 3, and 1 Azure platy a bordure Gules
semy of towers Or (an allusion to the Portuguese royal family's
descent in the female line from the Castilian royal family, if
not a claim to the Castilian throne, often called a bordure of
Castile)
Argent five inescutcheons 1, 3, and 1 Azure each charged with
five plates within a bordure of Castile (an allusion to the cult
of the Five Wounds of Jesus, which had qute a following in
Portugal-still does, AFAIK)

Now, the kings of one place or another will display all the arms
of dominion to which they can lay a claim. For instance, the
Plantagenets displaying the arms of both England and France to
show that they claim the throne of both realms, or the Catholic
Kings displaying Castile, Leon, Catalonia/Aragon, and, down at
the bottom, defeated Granada. That's not the same, though, as
changing the arms of the dominion itself. Now, in the event that
Atlantia, ever-victorious, defeats the Meridians so completely
that they give over their rule to us, then the king may quarter the
arms of Atlantia and Meridies. However, this is because he is king
of both realms, not because he has decided to change his arms.

> What better reason is there for a person to modify their arms than their own
> whim?  No need to bother registering any changes, since it'll probably get
> changed again in a few months anyway.

Because the entire point of heraldry is rapid identification. If
I see something marked with stripes and a Viking longship's prow,
I know right off the bat that it's Storvik's stuff. If it's
marked with a snail, I'm willing to bet that it's Mistress
Jaelle's. If people changed their arms all of the time, who'd
know whom from whom?

> Remember, the arms we're talking about belong to the Queen, not the kingdom.
> Sure, the arms can be seen as part of the many things that the Queen holds in
> keeping for the kingdom, but when you come right down to it, they be
> long to the
> Queen.

Is the president the owner of the White House? Similarly,
mediaeval people had the notion of "the king's two bodies"-the
king as a human being, and the king as the personification and
embodiment of the realm. To a certain extent, the first body and
the second body have different duties and rights. See
Kantorowicz's book of the same title for more.

> It almost makes me want to be king again.  I'd put a Son in his Splendour in
> canton.  Maybe get rid of the wavy too.  Of course, I wouldn't bother to
> register any of it.

But would you consult with the estates of this land? The notion
of the consent of the governed wasn't something that George,
Thomas, and the boys suddenly hit on in Philadelphia 227 years
and one day ago. It was around as far back as they could see.

> This whole attitude of "you can't do it if it isn't registered" is so modern
> it's painful.

Oh, you can do it. It's not like one of the heralds will show up
with an injunction or something. OTOH, it won't be recognized by
the Clerk of the Signet or in other ways. 

Pedro