Page 4 of 4

Re: Legal Status of Private Officers of Arms

Posted: 16 Jun 2013, 16:41
by Chris Green
No less than three of our Australian members apparently have heraldic titles already.

Re: Legal Status of Private Officers of Arms

Posted: 17 Jun 2013, 09:45
by Martin Goldstraw
Tomasz Steifer wrote:Did IAAH should not appoint its officer of arms? I think it will sound better, will call the Vice-President Heraldic Design, more traditionally: Mouse Or Pursuivant :)


An amusing idea which, if carried through, would no doubt serve to be hilarious to some. Mouse somehow seems more appropriate to the VP Communications but I personally wouldn't wish to present myself as a being a pursuivant when, in my heart, I would feel that I was play acting or simply pretending to be an "officer of arms". Personally, I even feel uncomfortable with the terms President and Vice President when after all is said and done we're little more than Committee members.

Re: Legal Status of Private Officers of Arms

Posted: 25 Dec 2013, 22:58
by John Jones
"Personally, I even feel uncomfortable with the terms President and Vice President when after all is said and done we're little more than Committee members."

Nothing wrong with such 'titles', which indicate functions. For example, the 'title' Secretary is a very ancient one and gives a clear indication of function.
I think the IAAH committee members carry out a valuable function, and should not regard themselves as 'little more than Committe members'. They have volunteererd and have been entrusted by the members to keep the IAAH running, and - by and large - they do this without any real reward other than the satisfaction of doing something they like doing.

Re: Legal Status of Private Officers of Arms

Posted: 28 Dec 2013, 08:14
by Bruce E Weller
And well worth the doing.