It just looks so wrong.
I must admit, I did have to check.
Motti?
Mottii.
Is that the nominative or accusative? 
Mottwo
There’s an obvious difference, which is that I actually ask for the examples you collectively cite so I can understand what people are referencing and I frequently tell people when I will have to refer a specific question to the experts to find out the answer to a query.
I’m aware of the gaps in my understanding and how frequently I get caught out by making an assumption based on what I’ve seen previously.
Please don’t make out that I’m just chinning you off.
The fundamental point I’m illustrating is that it’s impossible to govern “unauthorised” badges because it’s impossible to provide a rule set comprehensive enough to allow the people of the RAFAC to do this properly for themselves.
Therefore, the only real solution is to go through the formal process and stop people making stuff up.
We have limited capacity for those following the formal process. It’s not possible to manage the informal and keep them from bedding-in mistakes.
Even if they got it right, I could give their badge to another unit and make someone very unhappy. If it’s not authorised, it has no status.
Wouldn’t intellectually property rights start kicking in? (& who owns the design whilst it’s in draft - is it the designer or is it the Sqn through the committee?)
My gut would be that they don’t own anything.
The whole premise would be that they have a military badge, but they don’t have a military badge.
They have some doodles on a page and there’s only one body that can grant military badges.
Heraldry, once granted, is pretty close to intellectual property, but only because it can’t really count as physical property. I think.
I confess I’m not that well read on that level of detail.
An example of how easy it is to make a mistake, and thus demonstrate why I think following the process is the only workable option…
This is my most recent mistake.
I’m working with a local unit, 152 (City of Hull) Sqn.
Hull is well-known for its 3 ducal coronets in pale OR.
You see it everywhere, on a blue shield.
I’ve had to steer them towards a version of a badge draft that doesn’t use the crowns on the blue shield because they can’t use a body’s granted heraldry.
But, I’ve finally found the grant and it seems the city actually has a heraldic badge — it’s not a grant of arms.
The “Admiral of the Humber” does have a grant of arms, and that person is also the Lord Mayor of Hull. But that’s different.
So now I need to seek official guidance, because my plan was previously to explore using the charges from the shield (which would be allowed, in theory), but this means I’d actually be trying to steal the city’s badge.
Or does it?
Are you starting to see what I’m talking about?
It takes ages to do this right and the road is full of potholes.
And I’m trying to catch as many errors as possible, but someone further up the chain may then catch one I’ve missed and start me off from the beginning.
Absolute hero!
All have been added to the official register.
In 1475 Sqn we have another example of something that wouldn’t currently be allowed.
Motor Transport WO?
True.
The badge should focus entirely on the unit, rather than try to link to the parent organisation, which is covered by the astral crown and the words in the circlet.
If not, you end up with loads of badges all with the ATC falcon on (as you can see by casually browsing all the unauthorised badges).
I assume for this reason ?
I think rather than treating the “rules” as hardline requirements they probably need to be treated as strong guidelines.
The hard rules are for the badge template, colours crown. Etc
The strong guidelines are for the device & are not using the ATC falcon, legacy sqns other local arms or high detailed aircraft.
But if you have a very good reason & a strong link & reason then put the case for it - just expect having to document it & put the case.
So you’re a founder Sqn, your based on gliding station or the falcon has a strong local significance then it’s a maybe. If you want to add it cause it’s the ATC then no…
Likewise if you are an old Sqn & your RAF equivalent Sqn was disbanded in your Sqns lifetime & they wants you to continue the legacy then it’s a maybe.
But if you are newly formed and just want to use the old RAF Sqn badge because it matches then no as you have no link.
Heraldry is meant to be an art so its rules are meant to be fuzzy with contradiction - which probably gives @OC.1324 a headache
But if you can put a decent case with thought & rationale behind your badge even if it goes against the rules it should be considered in the maybe but sqns should be prepared that “grey approval badges” can likely be bounced at registration due to not having a strong enough case.
Otherwise you are just going to end up with the ATC eagle/falcon/albatross. Embossed on the towns crest & it not telling the story of the squadron.
Not a terrible summary.
The only headache really is people without authorised badges trying to claim they have a right to use stuff.
Or the general moaning that it isn’t fair that units have to go through a formal process. That’s fundamentally what all this discussion is about.
If you can get something that isn’t normally permitted through the process, then you’ve succeeded in bagging yourself an interesting quirk of history that’ll make for a cool story for your cadets in 50 years, and it’ll be secured for the future through your grant.
But until that happens, it’s just people trying to justify things that haven’t been authorised.
10f begs to differ…