[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Ray Saintonge]

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