New EU Directive Replaces "Royal" Arms!

[The Chief]

A new EU directive mandates the replacement of the "Royal" Arms within three years on documentation such as birth, death and marriage certs! Will be replaced with a nice standard EU form featuring the European flag.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10234162/British-people-will-be-branded-EU-citizens-from-cradle-to-grave-ministers-warn.html

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/88795-stamped-with-the-eu-flag-from-cradle-to-grave-brussels-replaces-royal-crest-on-uk-birth-certificates-with-euro-logo--against-ministers-wishes

I seem to recall that I posted a prediction of this some years back.
Anyway, Hurrah! Will get some as soon as the cleansed versions are available!

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

I would love to know in what way the Royal Arms of the Briitish Monarch are in any way not royal.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I would love to know in what way the Royal Arms of the Briitish Monarch are in any way not royal.

Betty Battenberg is a German pretender.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Since when has having a German great-great grandfather made a person born in Britain, raised in Britain, who speaks English as a first language and of whom all four grandparents are British, 'German'? She's about as 'German' as I am.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Since when has having a German great-great grandfather made a person born in Britain, raised in Britain, who speaks English as a first language and of whom all four grandparents are British, 'German'? She's about as 'German' as I am.

So, you can claim a German passport then? Betty is a German as they come! Indeed, we have that from an unimpeachable source, St. Diana, who, before she suffered unto death, went on the record that she "regretted marring into a German family."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.heraldry/njvCV818uP4/OVG9CqigXsYJ

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Can I claim a German passport? No, and neither can she (she can't claim a British one either, but that's beside the point.

Someone being of German descent doesn't make a person 'German'. Need I mention she has more English, Scottish and Danish ancestry than she has German?

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Can I claim a German passport? No, and neither can she (she can't claim a British one either, but that's beside the point.
Someone being of German descent doesn't make a person 'German'. Need I mention she has more English, Scottish and Danish ancestry than she has German?

Of course she can claim a German passport. And being of German descent is precisely what makes one German.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

How? Both her parents were British and she wasn't born in Germany either. That and the fact she doesn't actually need a passport, British passports being issued by her authority anyway.

[w***@hotmail.com]

No, being born in Germany or having one or more parents who were German, or speaking German as a first language makes one German. My male-line great-great grandfather was a Hindu immigrant to Britain in the late 1800s. I cannot speak a word of hindi or any other language native to the Indian subcontinent. I have no other Indian or Asian ancestry and I speak English as my first language and have never visited India. So I suppose that makes me Indian and not British then?

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
No, being born in Germany or having one or more parents who were German, or speaking German as a first language makes one German. My male-line great-great grandfather was a Hindu immigrant to Britain in the late 1800s. I cannot speak a word of hindi or any other language native to the Indian subcontinent. I have no other Indian or Asian ancestry and I speak English as my first language and have never visited India. So I suppose that makes me Indian and not British then?

You don't seem to have a great grasp of German citizenship law. Until just a few years ago, being born in Germany gave you no right at all to German citizenship. What mattered, and still matters, is descent - irrespective of place of birth. As for yourself, I think you will find that while most of your compatriots may be willing to describe you as British, they would balk at saying you are English.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

I think most of my 'compatriots' would describe me as 'English', seeing as that is exactly what I am. That and the fact most of my friends have an I.Q. higher than 6.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I think most of my 'compatriots' would describe me as 'English', seeing as that is exactly what I am. That and the fact most of my friends have an I.Q. higher than 6.

Then again, you might be surprised.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

No, as my friends are not racists, eugenicists nor irrational English nationalists

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
No, as my friends are not racists, eugenicists nor irrational English nationalists

You seem to be conflating your compatriots with your friends...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

The majority of my 'compatriots' aren't any of those things either, and to say otherwise would be an insult to the majority of British and/or English public. You are British, or if you want, English, if you were born here or if one of your parents is British or if you are a naturalised citizen. That is, and always has been, the only criteria. Race and male-descent or ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

Need I point out that the lineal ancestors of the English, the Angles and Saxons, of whom I am sure many an Englishman or woman could trace back their male-descent to if records were actually available were...German invaders from the German provinces of Angeln and Saxony, who spoke and whose descendants still speak a Germanic language? Kind of fitting that Britain has been ruled since 1901 by a junior branch of the Royal House of Saxony, given that Saxony is exactly where the English originally came from.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
The majority of my 'compatriots' aren't any of those things either, and to say otherwise would be an insult to the majority of British and/or English public. You are British, or if you want, English, if you were born here or if one of your parents is British or if you are a naturalised citizen. That is, and always has been, the only criteria. Race and male-descent or ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
Need I point out that the lineal ancestors of the English, the Angles and Saxons, of whom I am sure many an Englishman or woman could trace back their male-descent to if records were actually available were...German invaders from the German provinces of Angeln and Saxony, who spoke and whose descendants still speak a Germanic language? Kind of fitting that Britain has been ruled since 1901 by a junior branch of the Royal House of Saxony, given that Saxony is exactly where the English originally came from.

My point is a simple one. Being British is not at all the same as being English. Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, I will repeat my original position - your compatriots may well consider you British, without considering you to be English.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Right, but I am English in the sense that I was born in England, speak English, have lived in England all my life and I have one ancestor who constitutes 12.5 % of my DNA who is not English. By any sane person's reckoning, I am English.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Right, but I am English in the sense that I was born in England, speak English, have lived in England all my life and I have one ancestor who constitutes 12.5 % of my DNA who is not English. By any sane person's reckoning, I am English.

Next you will be insisting that I am English...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Right. So you are saying I am not English because I have some rather distant Indian ancestry? Are you aware how ridiculous, not to mention rather racist, that sounds? I do not have any Indian relatives living in this country; nor do I have any contact with any distant ancestors I may have living in India either, nor know anything about them.

Someone can only be English if all their ancestry is English then? You'd be hard pressed to find any Englishmen and women who do not possess any 'foreign' ancestry, particularly nowadays.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Right. So you are saying I am not English because I have some rather distant Indian ancestry? Are you aware how ridiculous, not to mention rather racist, that sounds? I do not have any Indian relatives living in this country; nor do I have any contact with any distant ancestors I may have living in India either, nor know anything about them.
Someone can only be English if all their ancestry is English then? You'd be hard pressed to find any Englishmen and women who do not possess any 'foreign' ancestry, particularly nowadays.

I never made any pronouncement on whether you are English or not. I do rather resent you trying to say that I am English though.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Where did I say you were English, exactly?

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Where did I say you were English, exactly?

In a series of rather tedious posts...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Care to point out exactly where because I assure you, I haven't. As you are quite aware.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Care to point out exactly where because I assure you, I haven't. As you are quite aware.

I thought you were making general arguments/points. Are you saying that they were not?

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

You stated that I am not English (even though I am), that the Queen is not British (even though she is) and that I stated that you are English (when I did not, and it is plainly obvious that you are not given your xenophobic anti-English statements)

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
You stated that I am not English (even though I am), that the Queen is not British (even though she is) and that I stated that you are English (when I did not, and it is plainly obvious that you are not given your xenophobic anti-English statements)

As they say, nul points...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

It's 'nil points' and you are still trolling.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by The Chief

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I would love to know in what way the Royal Arms of the Briitish
Monarch are in any way not royal.

Betty Battenberg is a German pretender.

Is that a Jacobite bee buzzing in your Balmoral bonnet?

[The Chief]

Post by Andrew Chaplin

Post by The Chief

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I would love to know in what way the Royal Arms of the Briitish
Monarch are in any way not royal.

Betty Battenberg is a German pretender.

Is that a Jacobite bee buzzing in your Balmoral bonnet?
--
Andrew Chaplin

Aye sir, it is. I am a republican, and don't go for any of this "royalty" nonsense. If you are to have a monarchy, though, would it not make sense to have a decent, legitimate one, rather than imported German pretenders?

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

A Jacobite would still be a monarchist.

The only thing remotely 'German' about Elizabeth II is her male-line ancestry. If that defines 'nationality' or ethnicity, then that makes me Indian, which I clearly am not.She is British in every sense of the term.

[Derek Howard]

Post by The Chief
A new EU directive mandates the replacement of the "Royal" Arms within three years on documentation such as birth, death and marriage certs! Will be replaced with a nice standard EU form featuring the European flag.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10234162/British-people-will-be-branded-EU-citizens-from-cradle-to-grave-ministers-warn.html
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/88795-stamped-with-the-eu-flag-from-cradle-to-grave-brussels-replaces-royal-crest-on-uk-birth-certificates-with-euro-logo--against-ministers-wishes
I seem to recall that I posted a prediction of this some years back.
Anyway, Hurrah! Will get some as soon as the cleansed versions are available!
Regards,
The Chief

Clearly the Telegraph and certainly Eric Pickles have either not read the proposal or are deliberately trying to raise the anti-EU hysteria for their own political purposes. Probably a race to the bottom to get there before UKIP. What deplorably poor journalism.

The proposal with its explanatory memorandum can be read at
<http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/com_2013_228_en.pdf>
and on the Council's web site at
<http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st09/st09037.en13.pdf>

Apart from the fact that it is old news, it is only a proposal by the European Commission and will have to pass the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; it puts into effect the 1987 Brussels Convention abolishing the legalisation of documents between the Member States of the European Communities, which shamefully has not been fully implemented till now.
I have in the past had to deal with the completely unnecessary hassle and expense of legalising documents and affixing apostilles. The proposal is for official multilingual copies of documents that will have absolutely no impact at all on established documents; the royal arms are as safe on national birth certificates as on the front of my British / EU passport. For anyone travelling, working, conducting business or settling in one or more EU country other than their home it will be a boon. If the proposal is adopted, I shall certainly be obtaining these multilingual standard forms for all my essential data.

Rant over, the real story has nothing whatsoever to do with heraldry. Though, thinking about it (but not for long) a multilingual standard form asserting legal rights to arms accepted throughout the EU might not be such a bad thing.

Derek Howard

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 14 Aug at 15:08, Derek Howard <***@skynet.be> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Post by Derek Howard
Though, thinking about it (but not for long) a multilingual standard
form asserting legal rights to arms accepted throughout the EU might
not be such a bad thing.

Is it feasible? I know the member countries have surrendered some of
their sovereignty to some part of the EU, but surrendering a country's
right to or not to have any truck with arms sounds a little difficult.
Further what would they do with the fact that it is utterly legitimate
for different people in different countries to have the same arms, what
bureaucracy would be set up to deal with that? And at what cost?

I share your view that this is not worth thinking about for very long.

[w***@hotmail.com]

It would perhaps be less annoying in my opinion if the European Union itself adopted Arms in its own right.

[Derek Howard]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
It would perhaps be less annoying in my opinion if the European Union itself adopted Arms in its own right.

Indeed. The design of the EU flag is seen occasionally on a shield shape. The Institutions' genealogical and heraldic society used it thus (not sure if they still operate). However, I do not see the Commission making such a suggestion and it being accepted by the Council and Parliament. Think of the argument there was a while back (when the discussions were about a "Constitution") about the idea there should be a European national anthem in law and not just practice.

My suggestion would be that as the institutions are based in Brussels, the next time there is a Belgian presidency of the EU the Flemish and Walloon heraldic authorities (who both claim jurisdiction over Brussels) could cooperate to simultaneously grant the EU its shield. The King could also of his own authority do so on the suggestion of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It would be a nice gesture if the King were to hand over one or two documents to the Presidents of the Council, Parliament and Commission jointly.

Derek Howard

[The Chief]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by w***@hotmail.com
It would perhaps be less annoying in my opinion if the European Union itself adopted Arms in its own right.

Indeed. The design of the EU flag is seen occasionally on a shield shape. The Institutions' genealogical and heraldic society used it thus (not sure if they still operate). However, I do not see the Commission making such a suggestion and it being accepted by the Council and Parliament. Think of the argument there was a while back (when the discussions were about a "Constitution") about the idea there should be a European national anthem in law and not just practice.
My suggestion would be that as the institutions are based in Brussels, the next time there is a Belgian presidency of the EU the Flemish and Walloon heraldic authorities (who both claim jurisdiction over Brussels) could cooperate to simultaneously grant the EU its shield. The King could also of his own authority do so on the suggestion of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It would be a nice gesture if the King were to hand over one or two documents to the Presidents of the Council, Parliament and Commission jointly.
Derek Howard

It would be nice if the EU council and flag design were thought of as arms/heraldic, rather than as a "logo."

Regards,
The Chief

[Derek Howard]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Derek Howard
Though, thinking about it (but not for long) a multilingual standard
form asserting legal rights to arms accepted throughout the EU might
not be such a bad thing.

Is it feasible? I know the member countries have surrendered some of
their sovereignty to some part of the EU, but surrendering a country's
right to or not to have any truck with arms sounds a little difficult.
Further what would they do with the fact that it is utterly legitimate
for different people in different countries to have the same arms, what
bureaucracy would be set up to deal with that? And at what cost?

There is no question involved here of surrender of sovereignty. It is a matter of multi-lingual forms that duplicate key information in the member state's records so that the information may be understood and used in another country. Given that the published proposal mentions also covering land ownership records clearly this does not mean the land would transfer country but could be used in appropriate contexts abroad. I envisage for instance a Belgian grant of arms being recognised, say, in Ireland. It would avoid the minor plague of court cases in Italy that once occurred, trying to prove claims in one country while in another. Costs would be the negligable ones of getting the issuing authority for the original record to issue an standard form copy. It would save carrying fine grant documents around. Just a thought.

Derek Howard

[The Chief]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip for brevity>

Post by Derek Howard
Though, thinking about it (but not for long) a multilingual standard
form asserting legal rights to arms accepted throughout the EU might
not be such a bad thing.

Is it feasible? I know the member countries have surrendered some of
their sovereignty to some part of the EU, but surrendering a country's
right to or not to have any truck with arms sounds a little difficult.
Further what would they do with the fact that it is utterly legitimate
for different people in different countries to have the same arms, what
bureaucracy would be set up to deal with that? And at what cost?
I share your view that this is not worth thinking about for very long.
--
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Tim, Derek,
I think an EU-wide "right to bear arms" would be wonderful!

As you say though, might not be worth worrying over, though it has gone through my mind whether one could make a successful argument that provision of arms is a "service" protected by the EU treaties!
Regards,
The Chief