Rights are not entitlements. Their benefits are EARNED by their exercise.
Rights are actions saying, "I can and will do this, and will (PERSONALLY) defend against anyone who, through use of force, would stop me." A true RIGHT is a personal will to action, not a privilege granted by some external authority or afforded by some collective. We exercise a RIGHT because INDIVIDUALLY it IS right, because it is righteous, and because we know it to be the right thing to do. It's inarguable and self-evident, not a perk or a gift for good behavior. Exercising a right doesn't ask permission... it is an act which is the most sovereign and answers to no higher authority. Only sovereign entities ...like Kings, have rights. All power comes from that sovereignty. If you have to ask permission, or feel guilt or shame about doing something, then you are not exercising your own authority. You either have Royal authority over yourself, or you are a slave and have no rights of your own (only perhaps "granted privileges," which are revocable). To prove this, you MUST demonstrate your authority by acting.... by exercising your rights.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Monday, July 9, 2018
Modern Warfare Unit Frontage Links
Modern Warfare Unit Frontage Links
- Warpac and Nato Unit frontages:
- https://18clovehamhock.blogspot.com/2012/06/warpac-and-nato-unit-frontages.html
- Infantry Unit Frontages during WW2:
- http://balagan.info/infantry-unit-frontages-during-ww2
Sunday, August 27, 2017
US Doesn't Need Heraldic Authority
To those who think heraldry needs regulatin' in the US (and I know I speak for a lot of American heraldic enthusiasts) but...
WE NEED ABSOLUTELY NO REGULATION
(capitalization for attention, emphasis and... unarguable finality).
Regulation and authority are actually bad. They serve no other purpose than to give a limited few who are not necessarily well-versed on actual historical usage of arms an exclusive ability to literally wreck heraldry over time for everyone subject to their "jurisdictions." All it takes is one small misinterpretation by some so-called "authority" about every fifty or so years to end up turning heraldry into a joke (and subsequently killing it) after only a couple of centuries. If you lock down the market by imposing authority on it, only bad things can happen... and competing improvements (based on more accurate interpretations) will be selected against.
Originally, in the 12th century, heraldry and devices were NOT "regulated" ...they were simply a naturally emergent tool for recognition of fighting men on the battle/tournament fields. As well they were "ownership" recognition (and a means of passing that heritance through signet rings and such). For a population which largely could not read or write, the design composition was literally a "signature" of it's bearer and anyone who needed such cognizance to conduct affairs (commoners & burghers on up) would assume and use such if they needed to.
Heralds' jobs were to identify who was who for their masters & patrons, not to tell people what they could or couldn't do. They were servants to nobles and kings specializing in sorting out their lords' subjects, peers and opponents. To a degree the heralds naturally collaborated, but in England, the unfortunate precedent of "governance" of the art eventually took hold... it's not a noble thing to emulate.
Regarding the supposed need for "protection" of arms from usurpation. Many advise trademarking. Registering of trademarks, that's for "business" products and services, not for "people" (or, arguably, the legal fiction of corporate persons themselves). Thus, it's no protection at all and by my reckoning also misuse (of the already abused industry) of intellectual property laws.
The best thing one can do is simply establish usage of arms (and if desired, file them with some registry, but that is absolutely NOT necessary). If any other arms (within a region) ever end up to conflict with one's own, then seek to establish whose are preeminent (by date of assumption, grant, etc.) and the bearer of more recent creation do the honorable thing and assume some form of difference or additionment. If two parties aren't willing to cooperate on this then, it's not that big of a deal. If they have enough notoriety, the community at large will judge (and possibly shun violators of honor).
WE NEED ABSOLUTELY NO REGULATION
(capitalization for attention, emphasis and... unarguable finality).
Regulation and authority are actually bad. They serve no other purpose than to give a limited few who are not necessarily well-versed on actual historical usage of arms an exclusive ability to literally wreck heraldry over time for everyone subject to their "jurisdictions." All it takes is one small misinterpretation by some so-called "authority" about every fifty or so years to end up turning heraldry into a joke (and subsequently killing it) after only a couple of centuries. If you lock down the market by imposing authority on it, only bad things can happen... and competing improvements (based on more accurate interpretations) will be selected against.
Originally, in the 12th century, heraldry and devices were NOT "regulated" ...they were simply a naturally emergent tool for recognition of fighting men on the battle/tournament fields. As well they were "ownership" recognition (and a means of passing that heritance through signet rings and such). For a population which largely could not read or write, the design composition was literally a "signature" of it's bearer and anyone who needed such cognizance to conduct affairs (commoners & burghers on up) would assume and use such if they needed to.
Heralds' jobs were to identify who was who for their masters & patrons, not to tell people what they could or couldn't do. They were servants to nobles and kings specializing in sorting out their lords' subjects, peers and opponents. To a degree the heralds naturally collaborated, but in England, the unfortunate precedent of "governance" of the art eventually took hold... it's not a noble thing to emulate.
Regarding the supposed need for "protection" of arms from usurpation. Many advise trademarking. Registering of trademarks, that's for "business" products and services, not for "people" (or, arguably, the legal fiction of corporate persons themselves). Thus, it's no protection at all and by my reckoning also misuse (of the already abused industry) of intellectual property laws.
The best thing one can do is simply establish usage of arms (and if desired, file them with some registry, but that is absolutely NOT necessary). If any other arms (within a region) ever end up to conflict with one's own, then seek to establish whose are preeminent (by date of assumption, grant, etc.) and the bearer of more recent creation do the honorable thing and assume some form of difference or additionment. If two parties aren't willing to cooperate on this then, it's not that big of a deal. If they have enough notoriety, the community at large will judge (and possibly shun violators of honor).
Saturday, October 8, 2016
COADB.COM Coat of Arms Database for Inspiration
Good inspiration for designing a new coat of arms (for assumption or just for fun) is sometimes a slippery fish.
I wanted to take a second to plug a website I use for ideas because of it's huge collection of arms: John Lehman's "COADB.COM Coat of Arms and Family Crest Search" website. The digital artwork is well composed and the database is constantly being added to... more than enough examples to keep my imagination engine running at full steam. Check it out!
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Heraldic Registries are not the Law of the Land
Let me talk for a second about heraldic registries in the US.
I'm gonna come out and say it; they do not in any way make your heraldic assumption any more legitimate than if you were to not use them. In other words, all they do is announce and publicize your assumption of arms to only those adherents who bother to notice and/or subscribe to a given registry. They offer you no protection from your... fears of usurpation, theft of concept, lack of feeling accepted, lack of accomplishment, lack of recognition or any other imagined results. Registries can "assist to facilitate" the process of banishing such fears, but it in no way guarantee removal.
Heraldic identity and existence only really lives in the minds of its proponents and possessors.
That being said, some "keepers of interesting records" such as the New England Historical and Genealogical Society (...breathe)... aka. the NEHGS have existed for a respectable amount of time and records penned and kept have endured beyond a single person's normal lifespan. Such a repository would be well recommended to stash evidence of your existence, and more importantly the existence of your arms.
On the other end... a fly-by-night website (such as the type of project I might put together) is not something to put your enduring trust into. Using myself as an example still, I might offer to register arms (assumptive, foreign, granted, etc.) in some self-determined interpretive way (in the ardent support of later period heraldry, I might demand that only full achievements be registered to always include crests, or I might try to make unsubstantive classifications based on supporters or lack of them). If I do this, be assured that I am completely fabricating the rules because to be frank, they don't exist in any place a heraldic authority acts without the backing of law or several hundred years of established and well defined tradition (this removes from France as a qualifier in my opinion).
A coat of arms, regardless of what a registry might tell you, is literally the actual design on the shield. It need not be a complex "full achievement" bedecked with helm, mantle, crest, motto, compartment, supporters, chivalric belts, pendant medals or any other such accessories.
So what should an heraldic registry, especially one in a land lacking a LEGAL heraldic authority such as the USA, require at minimum for registration?
ANSWER: Nothing more than the blazon (and/or either colored or tricked emblazonment) for a shield required.
That's it. Any "general public" registry which requires more (not saying it can't offer more, but the key word here is "require") is as wrong as a three dollar bill.
If all you have is a blazon for a shield device to register... do not let that stop you. Get it recorded if you want... or don't. If you post an image on Facebook, and that's all you do, that carries as much authority (at least in the US) as paying for an honorary grant from the College of Arms.
For that matter, if you are English, and you assume a shield device, that also carries as much weight (on the internet and in the US), even if you are unable to obtain an actual grant.
I'm gonna come out and say it; they do not in any way make your heraldic assumption any more legitimate than if you were to not use them. In other words, all they do is announce and publicize your assumption of arms to only those adherents who bother to notice and/or subscribe to a given registry. They offer you no protection from your... fears of usurpation, theft of concept, lack of feeling accepted, lack of accomplishment, lack of recognition or any other imagined results. Registries can "assist to facilitate" the process of banishing such fears, but it in no way guarantee removal.
Heraldic identity and existence only really lives in the minds of its proponents and possessors.
That being said, some "keepers of interesting records" such as the New England Historical and Genealogical Society (...breathe)... aka. the NEHGS have existed for a respectable amount of time and records penned and kept have endured beyond a single person's normal lifespan. Such a repository would be well recommended to stash evidence of your existence, and more importantly the existence of your arms.
On the other end... a fly-by-night website (such as the type of project I might put together) is not something to put your enduring trust into. Using myself as an example still, I might offer to register arms (assumptive, foreign, granted, etc.) in some self-determined interpretive way (in the ardent support of later period heraldry, I might demand that only full achievements be registered to always include crests, or I might try to make unsubstantive classifications based on supporters or lack of them). If I do this, be assured that I am completely fabricating the rules because to be frank, they don't exist in any place a heraldic authority acts without the backing of law or several hundred years of established and well defined tradition (this removes from France as a qualifier in my opinion).
A coat of arms, regardless of what a registry might tell you, is literally the actual design on the shield. It need not be a complex "full achievement" bedecked with helm, mantle, crest, motto, compartment, supporters, chivalric belts, pendant medals or any other such accessories.
So what should an heraldic registry, especially one in a land lacking a LEGAL heraldic authority such as the USA, require at minimum for registration?
ANSWER: Nothing more than the blazon (and/or either colored or tricked emblazonment) for a shield required.
That's it. Any "general public" registry which requires more (not saying it can't offer more, but the key word here is "require") is as wrong as a three dollar bill.
If all you have is a blazon for a shield device to register... do not let that stop you. Get it recorded if you want... or don't. If you post an image on Facebook, and that's all you do, that carries as much authority (at least in the US) as paying for an honorary grant from the College of Arms.
For that matter, if you are English, and you assume a shield device, that also carries as much weight (on the internet and in the US), even if you are unable to obtain an actual grant.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Second Conquergood Arms Shield Device Plaque
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Burke's General Armory Downloadable?
According to discussion on the AHS forums, it seems that "Burke's General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales" is downloadable from somewhere. Note to self: find and download this material!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)