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

[Richard Fitzgilbert]

Greetings from Richard!

Pedro made the following excellent points, presented in quotes:

"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:"

My point is that they could have changed even if they didn't.  If I was King of
England, I would be incredibly proud to wear Gules, three lions passant guardant
in pale Or.  But, if I wanted to repudiate my father or something equally
bizarre, I could, if I wanted to, modify the arms.  For me, I'd do something
like change the lions to couchant.  (A little heraldic knowledge is a dangerous
thing!).

"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?"

I agree, however, I'd say this is the problem of the bearer.  If I change my
arms, I have to be responsible for effects of that change.  If a member of the
royalty displays something bizarre instead of the well known arms for their
throne, they have to deal with those problems.  If the Queen of Atlantia decides
to drop the ermine from the arms, without the accordance of Laurel, She will
suffer no recognition problem and does no disservice to Her Arms, Crown, or
Kingdom.  I believe She'd be doing a great service to the whole Society.

"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."

You're not really using a modern example to justify heraldic practice, are you?
I agree that the royalty had a responsibility as custodians of the crowns that
mandate a care beyond changes made on casual whim.  But, the determination of
what was proper arms for them to use, was made by the holder of those arms.  I'm
saying that it would entirely appropriate for the Queen of Atlantia to bear the
arms that were submitted to Laurel, regardless of the opinion of Laurel.  The
final decision about what arms to wear should be Hers.

"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."

Sure, but I'd be a good king.  :)  This is one of the difference between
responsible custodianship of the thrones and those who are less than
responsible.  I'd consult with the estates.  I'd have the Kingdom Herald be the
central researcher on looking into the ramifications of any change.  But, I
certainly would make the final decision.  No way in heck I'd let a corporate
officer dissuade me from an action that I wanted to do, was recommended by the
kingdom herald, and was well thought of in my kingdom.

"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."

But, why wouldn't you hold a heraldic court?  It would be period and way cool!
If I bore a modified version of the King's arms and you convened a proper
heraldic court I would follow the dictates of the court.

I wouldn't interfere with a herald or clerk that decided to ignore any changes I
made that they felt were ill considered.  I could just start firing people and
replacing them with those who'd work with me.  Yes, I know that, technically,
the Crowns can't fire the Herald, but that's a distinction without a difference.
But, again, I wouldn't go down that road.

Digression: Recognition by the Clerk (or Herald) gets into the relationship of
the Crowns and the kingdom officers which can lead to a series of sticky
wickets.  One of my other hot buttons is the recent (last several years)
Atlantian Crowns (with many exceptions) have tended to involve themselves in
things better left to the Kingdom Officers.  This could also be stated from the
Kingdom Officer point of view.  The Kingdom Officers have brought too may things
they should have handled on their own before the Crowns.  <old fogey mode>I
thought it was better when the Crown concentrated on being the royalty and the
kingdom's hosts and let the officers handle all the administrivia on their
own.</old fogey mode>

Apology: All too often I have committed the sin of unintentionally insulting
friends, acquaintances, and strangers.  I mean no disrespect for the heralds and
all the work they do and all the valuable knowledge they acquire.  I just think
there's a better, more period, way to use all that talent, work, and knowledge.

Yours in Service to Atlantia,
Richard Fitzgilbert