http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/ottawa.htm

I had hoped the drawings would transfer with the text, but maybe the drawings weren’t transferable. This makes Vancouver’s problems seem minute.

A CALL TO "ARMS"

NEW CITY OF OTTAWA TO STRIP CROWN, TRADITION FROM ARMORIALS

<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >

Old City of Ottawa New City of Ottawa

OPINION, by RAFAL HEYDEL-MANKOO, Chairman, Ottawa Branch, The Monarchist League of Canada

Many readers are by now no doubt aware that the amalgamated City of Ottawa is to receive a new coat of arms. The Visual Identity Advisory Committee (the body responsible for choosing the final design) was composed of regional personalities the vast majority of whom had no background in heraldry. Rather than refer this matter to the Canadian Heraldic Authority, an experienced institution specifically created to deal with civic and personal heraldry, the Transition Board chose three private design companies to submit proposals. The logic of this act was lost on all.

A brief glance at the proposals submitted by the design companies inevitably leads one to assume that few of the designers had any training in the science and art of heraldry. The public has quickly ridiculed the three proposals. Letters to the editor were almost universal in condemning the choices. A common theme emerged: Why was the Canadian Heraldic Authority not initially consulted and asked for its recommendations? (In the end, the CHA was approached, but forced to work with the design companies’ suggestions. In essence, the Authority was in the terrible position of trying to make good heraldry out of bad designs.)

The Ottawa Branch of the Monarchist League immediately released a statement to both the Transition Board and the Chief Herald stating that as the capital of a constitutional monarchy, selected to be capital by Queen Victoria, it was inconceivable that Ottawa’s coat of arms should lack a crown. Further, it was requested that a stylised version of The St. Edward’s crown be included on both the crest and, as on the old arms, on the shield of the arms. Thus all concerned waited with great anticipation.

However, the unveiling of the proposed new coat of arms left most heraldists speechless. We were presented with a design the likes of which many had never seen before. Gone was St. Edward’s crown. Gone too were any recognisable symbols of Ottawa. The famed lumberjack and rifleman had vanished. We were left with a blue and green shield marked only with a "swoosh". No supporters graced the sides of the shield of this capital city. No proper crown surmounted the crest of the capital of a constitutional monarchy. The colours of the shield were those of both a local television channel and of a national political party. The globe on top seemed better suited to an environmental group or international organisation.

Heraldry has a vocabulary of its own. Peculiar to outsiders, it is a language which enables heraldists to describe a coat of arms in words alone. The description is called a "blazon". The question on the lips of heraldists is: "How does one blazon such a travesty?" The "swoosh" is not found in any armorial. Even the Canadian Heraldic Authority is struggling to find suitable words for theblazon. This is one occasion when words really do fail!

Public denunciation of the proposed arms has been quick, sharp and loud. Negative letters to the editor (by heraldists and non-heraldists alike) appeared and do continue to appear in virtually every issue of the Ottawa Citizen. An editorial in the Citizen also denounced the arms. Bob Chiarelli, the new Mayor-elect, appeared on the local CBC news and was questioned on the arms. CBC news has received a lot of complaints about the arms, he was told. What would he do? Chiarelli replied that he was open to suggestions. The Transition Board’s actions still have to be approved by the new City Council. ...

The article is too long to post in its entirety.  I cut it off here to get the main part of the controversy in.

The arms on the article are pretty sub-par in my opinion, for the capital of a monarchy especially.

I think someone in the seat of power told the design companies something to the effect of, “yeah, we want a coat of arms, but try to make it look modern and progressive looking.  Like we’re all about diversity man, and the global village…”

Reminds me of the arms of Burlington Vermont with that globe.

It appears the new design proposed back in 2000 was not approved, and the old arms are still around.

http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/visual_id/coat_en.html

Thank God they weren’t approved! they were horrible! It was nothing more than a modern logo on a shield and that, IMHO, is not heraldry. But, that’s just me and my $.02.

Well, a sensible approach. The ‘modernists’ get their way with the Wordmark and the CoA remains as is for ‘ceremonial’ purposes. I guess I’d rather see the CoA back burnered than done aways with altogether.

I think the saddest thing about the proposed changes was that when the city of Ottawa was finally shamed into approaching the CHA (instead of getting a semi-literate design firm to do it), the CHA seemed perfectly happy to grant the design with the swooshels (if there were only one, it would be a swoosh, but since there’s three, we need to use the diminutives), once they found a way to blazon them (I think they called them piles in bend embowed or something like that).  I know the Chief Herald is willing to bend over backwards to please a petitioner (particularly for cities), but that was ridiculous.

I do not understand why cities feel they must throw away their arms any time they get amalgamated.  They keep their names, why not the rest of their identity?  That’s like a woman getting married, keeping her maiden name, but throwing away her professional and academic qualifications on the grounds that she is now a whole new person.

The new arms are hideous. Why doesn’t everybody just adopt as arms a rainbow and a globe and be done with it?

Stuart wrote:

The new arms are hideous.

They’re not "the new arms".  They were a pseudoheraldic logo that was proposed and discarded, nothing more.

Madalch wrote:

They’re not "the new arms".  They were a pseudoheraldic logo that was proposed and discarded, nothing more.

Thank goodness ! The old one is rather complex - for my taste too complex.

But that new .....thing….was really ....

OK, wouldn’t want to get in conflict with the conduct code….

Kind regards

Jochen

Jochen wrote:

Thank goodness ! The old one is rather complex - for my taste too complex.

Won’t argue with that- it was a College of Arms grant, and they tend to be a bit busy.  I felt that if they had to change it, they should have simply removed the chief.

Quote:

But that new .....thing….was really ....

OK, wouldn’t want to get in conflict with the conduct code….

Some things just can’t be adequately described in wholesome language….