Towards an Australian
Towards an Australian
In December of 2002 the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the New South Wales parliament called for the creation of an Australian heraldic authority, noting that the College of Arms in London has no more authority in Australia than the English milk board. Jonathan Makepeace, an American critic of British heraldic tradition living in Canada, raises some issues Australians may want to examine as they consider this proposal.
Institutions reflect the values of the people who set them up, and the creation of a national heraldic authority involves more than merely asserting Australian sovereignty. It calls on Australians to reflect on who they are and what they value.
Coats of arms are essentially a means of identification, like a name or a trademark. However, unlike names or trademarks, the mere possession of a coat of arms is widely associated with elitism and snobbery in the English-speaking world. This has a great deal to do with the history of heraldry and the way coats of arms are regulated in Britain, Canada and New Zealand. In order to find their own path, Australians may want to examine how other countries do (or do not) regulate heraldry and the values behind the different approaches.
The legendary origin of coats of arms lies in medieval jousting tournaments. Knights are said to have painted designs onto their shields so that they could be distinguished one from another, even when their faces were covered by armour. Tournament officials, called heralds, reportedly resolved disputes about this practice, which became part of the discipline we now call heraldry.
Eventually, in largely illiterate societies, the middle class began to use coats of arms to identify their families and institutions, and monarchs across Europe began to regulate heraldry, officially granting coats of arms to nobles. In most European countries commoners could still informally design and adopt their own coats of arms without royal permission. These came to be known as Burgerwappen or "citizen arms." Arms granted by the monarch became a sign of nobility, of hereditary honour and privilege.
British heraldry took a slightly different turn. The monarchs of England and Scotland decided to strictly regulate all heraldry, both noble and middle class. In order to do this, the middle class were informally recognized as belonging to a sub- or quasi-noble class which the English call gentility or the gentry.
Most European monarchies continue to reserve legally recognized coats of arms to their nobility. Burgerwappen or "citizen arms" are tolerated but enjoy no protection in law.
England, Canada, New Zealand and Scotland all limit grants of arms to "worthy" persons to one degree or another, continuing to distinguish between the gentry and other citizens. In Canada, it is the office of the governor-general that carries out this task in the name of the Queen, as part of the national honours system. New Zealand has appointed its own "herald of arms extraordinary" (likewise within their national honours system) to liaise with the College of Arms in London.
The Burgerwappen or "citizen arms" tradition lives on in France and Germany, where informally assumed coats of arms now enjoy automatic legal protection. These countries have no distinct, government heraldic authorities. A coat of arms belongs to the family who first adopted it, and people continue to invent their own coats of arms today. Conflicts are resolved by the courts.
South Africa and the Belgian region of Flanders allow anyone to informally adopt a new coat of arms, but in order to enjoy legal protection arms must be registered with a government office. It is not clear whether assuming arms is legal in Ireland, but the Chief Herald of Ireland will grant a legal coat of arms to anyone with a significant connection to the island. None of these places considers a coat of arms to be an honour, and their heraldic authorities are all located within normal government ministries related to culture.
Indeed, an honour ceases to be an honour if it is granted to all. Honours recognize outstanding achievements or qualities. In general, the fewer people honored, the more prestigious the honour.
Both monarchies and republics have state honours systems, but it is hardly surprising that only monarchies consider coats of arms to be an honour. Coats of arms are hereditary, and hereditary honours are based on the assumption that outstanding achievement or qualities run in families. This concept reinforces class distinctions and weakens social mobility, since children are judged at least partly by who their parents were. Hereditary privilege is a core value in a monarchy.
Monarchies treat arms like traditional noble titles. Not everyone is allowed to have one, but those who do have them automatically pass them on to their descendants, passing social distinction from generation to generation.
Republics treat arms more like names. Everyone can have one and pass it on to their children, but the very fact that anyone can have one means that no social distinction is involved. Citizen arms confer no more distinction than does the mere fact that someone has a surname.
One largely English-speaking republic, the United States of America, has declined to regulate private coats of arms as such. Heraldry thrives in the United States, but practitioners can only seek legal protection for their coats of arms under the normal copyright and trademark laws, which are ill suited to the purpose.
At first glance one might think that this is based on U.S. rejection of the monarchy and classism, but there may be another reason. Every time American heraldry enthusiasts try to get together to push for the creation of a U.S. heraldic authority they discover that heraldry differs greatly in their various countries of origin. In Ireland, Scotland and South Africa a coat of arms is linked to a particular surname. In England and Canada a coat of arms can be inherited by someone with an entirely different surname. In British heraldry each member of a family has a slightly different coat of arms, but in many continental European countries a single coat of arms is used by all members of a family. Then there is the question of non-Western heraldic insignia, like Japanese mon.
Rather than picking through these different traditions trying to figure out which ones are "American," the U.S. government leaves personal heraldry completely unregulated. If, for example, the U.S. were to regulate coats of arms, how could it logically refuse to regulate tartans or Japanese mon as well?
Regulation inevitably involves standards. Choices must be made, and they will not please everyone. Multicultural societies like Australia and the U.S. inevitably impose all sorts of Anglo-Saxon cultural norms on immigrants in everything from language to legal traditions, but is there really a compelling reason for Australia to regulate heraldry?
Assuming there is such a need, it is not immediately clear who has the power to regulate coats of arms. Heraldry as such is not mentioned in the Australian constitution, so a lot depends on how you define coats of arms.
An Australian state could define coats of arms as a kind of name, as France and Germany do. The states have jurisdiction over personal names, but state regulation could lead to confusion and conflict as people move from state to state.
If you define coats of arms as quasi-noble hereditary honours, then jurisdiction lies with the queen or her viceroys: the governors and/or the governor-general. However, all moral issues aside, a simple, Canadian-style delegation of the royal prerogative to grant coats of arms would not result in substantive regulation. Canada, England and New Zealand have all delegated the royal prerogative, but there is no court in any of those countries empowered to hear complaints that an unauthorized person is using another person's coat of arms. Canadian, English and New Zealand grants of arms are purely symbolic. There is no way to enforce them.
Enforcement requires legislation, and the logical jurisdiction in Australia is federal. The federal parliament clearly has the power to confer copyright, patent and trademark protection. However, inheritance issues are also involved in regulating coats of arms. In order to avoid conflicting claims of jurisdiction it might be best for states to refer the matter to the federal parliament, as outlined in the federal constitution.
Like Australian society itself, heraldry is diverse and changing. Australians face many decisions on how or whether to regulate coats of arms, and those decisions will be powerful statements of the nation's values. Australia can choose among several different models in other countries, mix and match particular aspects of each, or chart an entirely new course. Monarchies traditionally treat coats of arms as a hereditary honour akin to a noble title, but nothing stands in the way of Australia adopting a more egalitarian approach. If anyone can redefine heraldry in the English-speaking world, rescuing it from its association with elitism and snobbery, Aussies can.
Report on the Proposed State Arms Bill New Australian flag proposal
Reference:
New South Wales Parliament, Standing Committee on Law and Justice
December 2002
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/1ED77299BF323604CA256C86000168DE
See also:
The Canadian Heraldic Authority, An Anachronism Turns Fifteen