Just because something got through that shouldn’t have, doesn’t justify doing it again. The records were all on paper, but are now being digitised, so such mistakes are less likely to be repeated.
If you read the article it wasn’t one that slipped through - it was deliberately & pre declared & approved.
It was t case of people check or went rogue, the Sqn was granted permission & it was approved by everyone involved in the process.
So in general you can’t use another device or motto & that should be your starting point you can do so should you go through the right channels.
1 Like
But as @OC.1324 pointed out, for most of it’s history, the records were on paper, that would mean trying to comb through every RAF, RN, Army, Noble bit of heraldry and checking for duplicates.
that’s just not feasible, so it would have been much of a trust system.
But if my old unit tried to put their current badge through, they’d be caught out by simply searching the motto
1 Like
Can you please share the full example you’re referring to. It may be possible that there is a misunderstanding.
And the discussion is again demonstrating why it needs gripping, generally speaking.
It isn’t something to be wildly interpreted by people in the organisation by pointing at what they see as precedent.
Not sure in peps on but this is clear example where it was known that the Sqn was using an old approved crest & it was formally granted in 2006.
No paperwork loss, no lack of double checking or lack of due dilliegence.
It was known, it was declared & it was approved (& probably then opened the can of worms for all the other Sqn badges)
2 Likes
I’ve read the linked page now and accept your argument that this was done in full knowledge it was a copy of the RAF sqn’s badge.
Difficult to imagine the justification for a Newbury-based sqn to have a badge based on links to Bruges but, apparently, ‘we have the same number as the RAF sqn’ worked on that occasion. Different inspectors may take a different view.
1 Like
So I think the justification was
- it was done in full knowledge
- the RAF did not intend to re-establish 211 Sqn
- the air cadet Sqn was long standing
- it allowed the history of the RAF Sqn to be carried by a legacy unit.
So if a squadron has a legacy Sqn number & wants to continues the history it is possible but they need to get permission first.
If you are a low numbered ATC unit (under 100) chances are that you won’t be able to as the RAF may still want to use the Sqn number (but you might be able to do a defaced or amended variant).
It’s clear There’s flexibility in the rules (from college of arms perspective) so it just needs a bit of flexibility, pragmatism & common sense.
1 Like
The problem is, that shouldn’t have happened.
The RAF unit identity still exists.
It being done that way once isn’t reason to do it repeatedly. As with heraldry generally, there shouldn’t be duplication because the whole point is establishing a visual and unique identity.
And again, the fact that quirks like this exist and further confuse matters, this is why it needs gripping and to go through a formal process only.
There’s too much nuance for people with but a passing familiarity with the world of heraldry to make their own stuff up.
The RAF inspectorate & college of arms disagree with your interpretation & did so in the full knowledge of the conventions.
It went through the formal approval process & everything was known up front.
2 Likes
So, things have changed since 2006. Not so long ago I heard talk of all the WW1 and WW2 sqn numbers being reactivated for swarming drone sqns.
I already have with you, you’ve got a copy 
Sorry, I meant the other half of the equation. Have seen it now!
I understand your point, but the whole point of heraldry is the creation of a unique visual identity.
It may be that the ATC badge was approved on the basis that the rest of the badge made it clearly distinct (red circlet, astral crown etc).
The laws of arms etc do change over time. It is not currently acceptable.
1 Like
So what do you propose then? That sqn has to change their approved badge?
1 Like
So it was acceptable, is currently not, but may be acceptable once again in the future…?!?
This is getting a tad tedious at this point, so I’m going to start dialling it back.
My central point is quite consistent.
It is a very complicated system that can, at times, flex in unexpected ways, and in the broader context of heraldry, is largely whatever the Kings of Arms wish it to be.
It can be complicated enough already, so getting every Tom, Dick, and Harry involved with their own interpretation is pointless.
You want to play the game, get an authorised badge through the appropriate channels and secure your legacy. That way, no matter what happens, it’s set in stone and preserved.
Until you do that, you have absolutely no rights.
1 Like
Currently scratching my head about mottos. Assume we can’t just use the same as our council’s?
I would have to ask this question.
I don’t think the mottos that accompany armorial achievements are the same.
If I wished to change my motto, I was told I could do that at will as it isn’t actually included in the blazon, even though it does appear on the grant of arms.
Whereas these military badges have the motto as part of the “sealed pattern”, so to speak.
So if I end up engaging you formally, I will happily put that forward and cite the council motto. If it’s a problem, we’ll be told.
2 Likes
I’m not being facetious here, it is a genuine question. Squadron meets criteria of inspectorate of badges, but not your criteria. So what happens next? Does that count as approved or not?
2 Likes