The National Arms of Pakistan and the College of Arms

[w***@hotmail.com]

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on this for me. Pakistan became independent in 1947 and from 1947 to 1956 was a monarchy with the British monarch as monarch in a personal union (like Canada etc. today). In 1954, still a monarchy (but with the adoption of a republican constitution being banded about), Pakistan adopted Arms which, whilst not a fantastic example of good heraldry, certainly counts as such (being on a shield and blazonable to boot. Now, the College of Arms had/has a policy (for want of a better term) of granting to former colonies that were due to been granted independence Arms, usually as monarchies in a personal union with the British crown (which was the case in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Jamaica, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, the Bahamas, Barbados, Mauritius, Ceylon, The Gambia, South Africa, Belize, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Guyana), and also I believe in a few cases to former colonies that became republics on independence. (I believe this was the case for the Seychelles, Zambia, and Botswana.) My question is, why didn't Pakistan, as one of the realms of HM the Queen at the time, request the aid of the College of Arms in granting and designing the Arms and was there anything wrong with them not doing so from an heraldic-legal point of view?

[w***@hotmail.com]

Nobody have any idea?!?

[Derek Howard]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on this for me. Pakistan became
independent in 1947 and from 1947 to 1956 was a monarchy with the British
monarch as monarch in a personal union (like Canada etc. today). In 1954,
still a monarchy (but with the adoption of a republican constitution being
banded about), Pakistan adopted Arms which, whilst not a fantastic example of
good heraldry, certainly counts as such (being on a shield and blazonable to
boot. Now, the College of Arms had/has a policy (for want of a better term)
of granting to former colonies that were due to been granted independence
Arms, usually as monarchies in a personal union with the British crown (which
was the case in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone,
Tanganyika, Jamaica, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda,
St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, the Bahamas, Barbados, Mauritius, Ceylon, The
Gambia, South Africa, Belize, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Guyana), and
also I believe in a few cases to former colonies that became republics on
independence. (I believe this was the case for the Seychelles, Zambia, and
Botswana.) My question is, why didn't Pakistan, as one of the realms of HM
the Queen at the time, request the aid of the College of Arms in granting and
designing the Arms and was there anything wrong with them not doing so from
an heraldic-legal point of view?

According to the Ceremonial of the Coronation of the Queen, dated at the Earl Marshal’s Office 2 June 1953, the Standards of Ceylon, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand and Canada were borne before the Union Standard at the Coronation in 1953. That of Pakistan was borne by His Excellency Mr Mirza A H Ispahani. I have not checked on the similarities between this standard and the arms. It might be that the Standard was adopted not in 1954 but 1953 in connection with the Coronation and in discussion with the Earl Marshal and the College. If so, further formalisation may have been deemed unnecessary. Just a thought.
Gazette Issue 40020, published 17 Nov 1953, p 18
<http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/40020/supplements/6240>

Derek Howard

[w***@hotmail.com]

I believe the 'Standard of Pakistan' in this instance was merely the National Flag of Pakistan rather than an actual armorial standard as such, but I could be wrong; the Arms after all were only adopted the following year.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on this for me. Pakistan became independent in 1947 and from 1947 to 1956 was a monarchy with the British monarch as monarch in a personal union (like Canada etc. today). In 1954, still a monarchy (but with the adoption of a republican constitution being banded about), Pakistan adopted Arms which, whilst not a fantastic example of good heraldry, certainly counts as such (being on a shield and blazonable to boot. Now, the College of Arms had/has a policy (for want of a better term) of granting to former colonies that were due to been granted independence Arms, usually as monarchies in a personal union with the British crown (which was the case in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Jamaica, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, the Bahamas, Barbados, Mauritius, Ceylon, The Gambia, South Africa, Belize, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Guyana), and also I believe in a few cases to former colonies that became republics on independence. (I believe this was the case for the Seychelles, Zambia, and Botswana.) My question is, why didn't Pakistan, as one of the realms of HM the Queen at the time, request the aid of the College of Arms in granting and designing the Arms and was there anything wrong with them not doing so from an heraldic-legal point of view?

I can't quite believe this post isn't a joke. So let me play along...

Yes, Pakistan was quite wrong to create and use these illegal "arms." Absent proper approval from the clerks at the COA, such purported arms are quite invalid, as is Pakistani independence...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

I never said that they were wrong or illegal, or that Pakistan was doing anything wrong in not going to the College of Arms. If anything, my personal opinion of the College of Arms is less than complimentary, but the facts remain that almost all of the states that gained independence from the United Kingdom and retained the British Monarch as their Head of State (and a few that became republics, namely Zambia, the Seychelles and Botswana) sought a grant from the College of Arms in London, but there were exceptions, Pakistan being amongst them.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I never said that they were wrong or illegal, or that Pakistan was doing anything wrong in not going to the College of Arms. If anything, my personal opinion of the College of Arms is less than complimentary, but the facts remain that almost all of the states that gained independence from the United Kingdom and retained the British Monarch as their Head of State (and a few that became republics, namely Zambia, the Seychelles and Botswana) sought a grant from the College of Arms in London, but there were exceptions, Pakistan being amongst them.

Well then, was it an impostor who posted "was there anything wrong with them not doing so from an heraldic-legal point of view?"

The required answer to which is that of course they were wrong, as we all know that only COA granted arms have any validity.... [Heraldic jurisdiction not having been granted to the Dominions, etc.]

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Right, but I was asking 'was it wrong?', not saying 'it was wrong'; I was asking a question, not making a statement.