While killing time, I ran across the wikipedia entry for Colin Cole, a lawyer who was Garter from 1978-1992 and this gem caught my eye:
Quote:
His leisurely conduct of day-to-day business, hampered by the lack of a properly staffed office, sometimes led to expressions of irritation from clients. When a patent for a Knight of the Garter was belatedly presented to the Queen to sign, it came back with a note that read: "Her Majesty prefers to sign these while the recipient is still alive."
LOL! Hehehe Nice one. :D
Hmm ... and yet he is the one credited by Anthony Wood of relaxing the rules for heraldic artists at the ECOA in allowing front facing helms for all degrees depending on the position of the crest. The way Anthony Wood speaks of him seems to indicate that he was a very good Garter. Of course I have no personal knowledge and therefore can’t say for sure. But, my gut tells me if his actions made life easier for the heraldic artists there and a happy artist is usually a very good artist and therefore a client is usually very pleased with the result of the work then maybe he wasn’t all bad ... even if he was so slow as to get a note like this and the client wasn’t alive anymore to appreciate it! LOL.
Donnchadh;47056 wrote:
Hmm ... and yet he is the one credited by Anthony Wood of relaxing the rules for heraldic artists at the ECOA in allowing front facing helms for all degrees depending on the position of the crest. The way Anthony Wood speaks of him seems to indicate that he was a very good Garter. Of course I have no personal knowledge and therefore can’t say for sure. But, my gut tells me if his actions made life easier for the heraldic artists there and a happy artist is usually a very good artist and therefore a client is usually very pleased with the result of the work then maybe he wasn’t all bad ... even if he was so slow as to get a note like this and the client wasn’t alive anymore to appreciate it! LOL.
This may have more to do with the age of many of those upon whom the Order of the Garter is bestowed. Many of the newest members of the order are of a very advance age when the opening for a Garter position is freed by the death of one of the members. If the order did not have such a limited number of knights, more worthy persons could be appointed while they could actually enjoy the honour, that is attend the investiture on their own legs and actually hear and see the proceedings.
David Pritchard;47060 wrote:
If the order did not have such a limited number of knights, more worthy persons could be appointed while they could actually enjoy the honour, that is attend the investiture on their own legs and actually hear and see the proceedings.
On the other hand, if the order’s numbers weren’t limited, receiving it would be seen as less of an honor.
I think I’ve read somewhere that some blamed Sir Colin for allowing Canada to get away from the English heraldic establishment with their own heraldic authority. I’m not sure where I read that, or what he could have done to stop it. Perhaps he could have set up a Canada Herald Extraordinary for a situation like New Zealand.
David Boven;47063 wrote:
I think I’ve read somewhere that some blamed Sir Colin for allowing Canada to get away from the English heraldic establishment with their own heraldic authority. I’m not sure where I read that, or what he could have done to stop it. Perhaps he could have set up a Canada Herald Extraordinary for a situation like New Zealand.
Which is a total muddle. NZ Herald Extraordinary holds an appointment under the UK Crown, not the NZ Crown, and the arms are granted by the Kings of Arms of England, who do not hold their offices under the Queen of New Zealand but under the Queen of the UK. The creation of NZ Herald did nothing to address the basic constitutional issue arising from the assertion of continued authority by English heraldic officials over the independent dominions; it merely provided a cosmetic covering by creating a position that sounds like a New Zealand official, but really isn’t, as a go-between.
In any case, those who have a problem with Canadian independence might better direct their ire at the Earl of Derby, under whose prime ministership the British North America Act was passed in 1867, than at Garter Cole.
This is only slightly off-topic, but could someone explain supernumerary Garter members to me?
Patrick Williams;47072 wrote:
This is only slightly off-topic, but could someone explain supernumerary Garter members to me?
Foreign monarchs and members of the British royal family; they don’t count against the 24-member limit.
Ah, thanks. I had thought that supernumeraries were a bit more common.
Joseph McMillan;47066 wrote:
The creation of NZ Herald did nothing to address the basic constitutional issue arising from the assertion of continued authority by English heraldic officials over the independent dominions; it merely provided a cosmetic covering by creating a position that sounds like a New Zealand official, but really isn’t, as a go-between.
And by preserving the imperial jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal, the College also gets the cash flow from the former colonies to help their bottom line, which IIRC, hasn’t been very good lately. I suspect this is the same reason that the College doesn’t publish blazons in its newsletter, as raised in another thread; one wouldn’t need to pay the fee to search the College’s records as often.