On 4/2/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Trivia: My mum went to [[Godolphin and Latymer School]].
Small world. I went to Latymer, which is why I keep an eye on this article.
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
In general, I find it problematic when someone states that something is "obvious" in as obscure and complicated a field as heraldry. Obvious to you, perhaps. Not at all obvious to me. Thus, a source would be nice, for those of us who aren't heraldic experts and would like to find out more about this interesting fact beyond the 1 or 2 sentences in a Wikipedia article. I'm sure Chelseaboy knows what he's talking about; that's missing the point, though.
-- phoebe