Andrew Gray wrote:
On 02/04/07, Earle Martin wrote:
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".
I wonder then if the logo of the [[Ministry of Sound]] (and probably those of many other outfits) require authorization...
I'm not sure it's so much "require authorisation" as making the point that it *isn't* a shield of arms. It looks like one, it feels like one, but it *isn't* one. My understanding is that if you're using it as a shield, it has to be authorised; in this case, it isn't, so it's simply a pretty and confusing logo.
Who but Monty Python would go into a modern battle carrying this type of shield, and with a full suit of armor. :-)
Is there any penalty for walking around with an unauthorized shield?
Really depends what you present it as, I suppose.
It's very different from the right to bear arms in the US Constitution. :-)
Ec