College of Arms is now hiring

[p***@gmail.com]

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/168-probationary-officer-of-arms-job-advertisement

Will this be an appointment by the Corporation of the Officers of Arms, or by the monarch, or by the Earl Marshal...?

Satoru Uemura

[3ARwun]

Post by p***@gmail.com
https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/168-probationary-officer-of-arms-job-advertisement
Will this be an appointment ... by the monarch, or by the Earl Marshal...?
Satoru Uemura

It will be both, because it cannot be either one.

In other words, it will "officially" be an appointment by the crown upon the EM's recommendation, which means the appointment will be made by the EM "in the Queens name" in practice. Or that's what I gather based on the link you included in your post. Doubtless, there are office politics at the COA like any other organization, that would have a "behind the scenes" modification to what is in the advert.

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com
https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/168-probationary-officer-of-arms-job-advertisement
Will this be an appointment by the Corporation of the Officers of Arms, or by the monarch, or by the Earl Marshal...?
Satoru Uemura

Quotation from the Job Advertisement:
"The College of Arms is seeking to recruit a new probationary officer of arms with military experience subject to a twelve-month training period."

Presumably the successful applicant will, at this stage, be appointed by the College of Arms, in much the same way as posts within the Archive and Conservation departments are. Only if the probationary period is successful, will the probationer be appointed as a substantive Officer of Arms "by the Crown on the recommendation of the Earl Marshal". Their salary will then be reduced to 6s. 4d. a year, or whatever it was under Richard III.

But what I find interesting is the requirement for military experience. I accept that later in the job description military experience is described as 'highly desirable' rather than 'essential', but whatever the historical connections between heraldry and the tournament and battle fields, I'm not sure what advantage a commission in the modern armed forces provides for the study of heraldry. Perhaps parade ground experience is intended to improve the heralds' deportment. Or more seriously, might it possibly help in liaison with those military units involved in the next coronation procession?

Peter Howarth

[Peter Howarth]

On Sunday, 15 September 2019 08:47:40 UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote:
Only if the probationary period is successful, will the probationer be appointed as a substantive Officer of Arms "by the Crown on the recommendation of the Earl Marshal". Their salary will then be reduced to 6s. 4d. a year, or whatever it was under Richard III.
I shouldn't be lazy, relying on my fallible memory, but look things up properly. The new pursuivant, if she (I hope) is appointed, will receive a salary of £13.95, dating from the reign of William IV.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

As for the appointment,or what is a 'probationary' officer, I agree with Peter.

'military experience' is, in my understanding, the experience for so called 'military heraldry.' Armies (navies, air forces) of the nations have demand for heraldry and/or adjacent fields, such as flag, badge, seals, etc.
That is why (again in my understanding), The US Army has the Institute of Heraldry (why I cannot access the website...?), and Portuguese Army and Navy have similar bodies.
For the latter two, see this Ph.D dissertation:
https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316/12166
(For the Army see p.334 of the thesis and for the Navy p.23 of the Anexos. The Air Force once had the same body: see p.24 of the Anexos.)

Satoru Uemura

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com
As for the appointment,or what is a 'probationary' officer, I agree with Peter.
'military experience' is, in my understanding, the experience for so called 'military heraldry.' Armies (navies, air forces) of the nations have demand for heraldry and/or adjacent fields, such as flag, badge, seals, etc.
That is why (again in my understanding), The US Army has the Institute of Heraldry (why I cannot access the website...?), and Portuguese Army and Navy have similar bodies.
https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316/12166
(For the Army see p.334 of the thesis and for the Navy p.23 of the Anexos. The Air Force once had the same body: see p.24 of the Anexos.)
Satoru Uemura

I wondered about that, and I agree with you completely that military heraldry is a definite specialism. Indeed in England the three different services each have their own herald to advise them (see https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/naval-military-raf). The problem is that an ex-member of one or two ships, or one regiment, or one squadron, will not necessarily have any better overall knowledge of military badges than an outsider with a broader viewpoint. A study of the records of existing badges, with a general knowledge of heraldry, is probably more helpful in designing new badges than one person's experience of military service. The present Garter, a barrister with as far as I can tell no service experience (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woodcock_(officer_of_arms) ), is responsible for advising on all army badges.

In any case, military badges form a very small proportion of the work of the officers of arms. The biggest jobs facing them in the not too distant future will be two royal funerals and then a coronation; and they will, if they are sensible, already be preparing for them.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth
I wondered about that, and I agree with you completely that military heraldry is a definite specialism. Indeed in England the three different services each have their own herald to advise them (see https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/naval-military-raf). The problem is that an ex-member of one or two ships, or one regiment, or one squadron, will not necessarily have any better overall knowledge of military badges than an outsider with a broader viewpoint. A study of the records of existing badges, with a general knowledge of heraldry, is probably more helpful in designing new badges than one person's experience of military service. The present Garter, a barrister with as far as I can tell no service experience (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woodcock_(officer_of_arms) ), is responsible for advising on all army badges.

Got your point. Actually there is even one officer extraordinary who has a military career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Bruce_of_Crionaich

But that they specifically mentioned 'military experience' means they feel some necessity for it anyway.

Satoru Uemura

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Peter Howarth

Post by p***@gmail.com
As for the appointment,or what is a 'probationary' officer, I agree with Peter.
'military experience' is, in my understanding, the experience for so called 'military heraldry.' Armies (navies, air forces) of the nations have demand for heraldry and/or adjacent fields, such as flag, badge, seals, etc.
That is why (again in my understanding), The US Army has the Institute of Heraldry (why I cannot access the website...?), and Portuguese Army and Navy have similar bodies.
https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316/12166
(For the Army see p.334 of the thesis and for the Navy p.23 of the Anexos. The Air Force once had the same body: see p.24 of the Anexos.)
Satoru Uemura

I wondered about that, and I agree with you completely that military
heraldry is a definite specialism. Indeed in England the three different
services each have their own herald to advise them (see
https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/naval-military-raf). The problem
is that an ex-member of one or two ships, or one regiment, or one squadron,
will not necessarily have any better overall knowledge of military badges
than an outsider with a broader viewpoint. A study of the records of
existing badges, with a general knowledge of heraldry, is probably more
helpful in designing new badges than one person's experience of military
service. The present Garter, a barrister with as far as I can tell no
service experience (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woodcock_(officer_of_arms) ), is
responsible for advising on all army badges.

Is there a herald with military experience about to retire,
so they feel a need to make sure there is someone with military
experience on the roster?

Post by Peter Howarth
In any case, military badges form a very small proportion of the work of the
officers of arms. The biggest jobs facing them in the not too distant future
will be two royal funerals and then a coronation; and they will, if they are
sensible, already be preparing for them.

I believe they have annual rehearsals for the funerals.
Those who thought they would take part keep retiring or dying...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Peter Howarth]

Post by Louis Epstein
Is there a herald with military experience about to retire,
so they feel a need to make sure there is someone with military
experience on the roster?

This still leaves my question unanswered: what is it about military experience that is of value in carrying out the job of a herald? I can't see anything that hasn't been carried out equally well by those without the experience. Is it an attempt to avoid appointing a woman?

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth
This still leaves my question unanswered: what is it about military experience that is of value in carrying out the job of a herald? I can't see anything that hasn't been carried out equally well by those without the experience. Is it an attempt to avoid appointing a woman?

Or, are they planning to extend their business? In other words, is there any demand which they are currently not able to satisfy because of the lack of military experience?

Satoru Uemura

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com
Or, are they planning to extend their business? In other words,
is there any demand which they are currently not able to satisfy
because of the lack of military experience?

You'd hope that that is what they had in mind. The problem is that they haven't asked for any such qualifications.

This is the job description:

* Professional work undertaken by the officers of arms such as dealing with heraldic and genealogical enquiries from members of the public and organisations, processing applications for new grants of arms, undertaking genealogical, historical and other research, and establishing rights to arms and the descent of dignities by inheritance.
* Work undertaken for the College such as cataloguing various collections of manuscript and printed volumes and updating registers and pictorial indexes for research purposes.
* Official work undertaken by the officers of arms on behalf of the Royal Household and the Government.

The requirements are:

Essential

Good university degree
Excellent analytical and drafting skills
First-rate communication skills (oral and written) and approachability
Enthusiasm, adaptability and ability to learn quickly
Professionalism, proactive nature and ability to work independently with minimal supervision
Ability to deal directly with members of the public
Ability to establish a wide network of contacts.

Highly desirable

Military experience as a commissioned officer
Knowledge and experience of heraldry and genealogy
Knowledge of British and Commonwealth history, languages and legal matters

'Military experience as a commissioned officer' is the one requirement that has no obvious connection with (a) the job description, or (b) the other requirements. It seems to have been inserted for some undisclosed, ulterior motive. Perhaps they feel that the military will already have weeded out 'undesirables' such as those who are BAME, working class or female. Or if they still fall into one of those categories, that they will have been fully trained to behave 'properly', like those who went to public school.

I write as one who has noticed the advantages silently provided because I went to public school and then got my first degree at Cambridge.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth
'Military experience as a commissioned officer' is the one requirement that has no obvious connection with (a) the job description, or (b) the other requirements. It seems to have been inserted for some undisclosed, ulterior motive. Perhaps they feel that the military will already have weeded out 'undesirables' such as those who are BAME, working class or female. Or if they still fall into one of those categories, that they will have been fully trained to behave 'properly', like those who went to public school.
I write as one who has noticed the advantages silently provided because I went to public school and then got my first degree at Cambridge.

I read the requirements again, and the idea which suddenly came to me is, how do the heraldist-heralds feel like
when they perform their ceremonial duty (this may fall in the last item of the job description)?
Is it as much comfortable as when they are in the archives or libraries?
Is it not the case, commissioned officers are better fit for that 'Pomp and Circumstance'?
(And this is just one branch of their duties, that's why 'military experience'is not part of essential conditions.)

What you suppose is of course possible, but I am not quite sure how much does the 'military experience' clause work to discourage the 'undesirable' people to apply. If the aspirants are willing, they can apply since the clause is not a mandatory condition; and also the College has always option, not to choose 'undesirables'.

Uemura Satoru

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com
I read the requirements again, and the idea which suddenly came to me is, how do the heraldist-heralds feel like
when they perform their ceremonial duty (this may fall in the last item of the job description)?
Is it as much comfortable as when they are in the archives or libraries?
Is it not the case, commissioned officers are better fit for that 'Pomp and Circumstance'?
(And this is just one branch of their duties, that's why 'military experience'is not part of essential conditions.)
What you suppose is of course possible, but I am not quite sure how much does the 'military experience' clause work to discourage the 'undesirable' people to apply. If the aspirants are willing, they can apply >since the clause is not a mandatory condition; and also the College has always option, not to choose 'undesirables'.

Although I have never been in the armed forces (I missed compulsory National Service by one year), I learned to process as a choirboy in church, which is very similar to the heralds' processions, much more than military marching. It was certainly not difficult to learn. And then we have laws that prohibit using race or gender as reasons for refusing to employ someone, which could make it difficult to turn down an otherwise well-qualified 'undesirable'. But by adding military experience to the list of requirements, lack of it could be used as a means of side-stepping the law, if that was what was wanted.

In trying to find excuses for the military requirement, I feel that we are clutching at straws. I accept that I am being very cynical and, in many ways, I hope that your views are closer to the truth than mine. It's just that my doubts won't go away.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth
Although I have never been in the armed forces (I missed compulsory National Service by one year), I learned to process as a choirboy in church, which is very similar to the heralds' processions, much more than military marching. It was certainly not difficult to learn.

Does their ceremonial role include procession only? How about coming (likely to come soon) coronation and
one more event which immediately precedes it?
(May be I am more cynical than you. :-))

Uemura Satoru

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Howarth
Although I have never been in the armed forces (I missed compulsory National Service by one year), I learned to process as a choirboy in church, which is very similar to the heralds' processions, much more than military marching. It was certainly not difficult to learn.

Does their ceremonial role include procession only? How about coming (likely to come soon) coronation and
one more event which immediately precedes it?
(May be I am more cynical than you. :-))
Uemura Satoru

It appears that the heralds organise what everyone else is supposed to do, including the military, based on the detailed records, with timings, that they have kept from previous occasions. (See Rodney Dennys, chapter 21, Parliamentary Duties of the Heralds, and chapter 22, The Ceremonial Duties of the Heralds, in 'Heraldry and the Heralds', 1982.) But the ceremonial duties that they carry out personally, even in secular settings, are very similar in style to the way ceremonies are conducted in cathedrals, using smooth and solemn movements rather than the quick marches of a military display. At the Opening of Parliament, when Black Rod knocks on the door to the Commons after it has been shut in her face, it is done slowly and deliberately instead of as a military rat-a-tat-tat. Black Rod is not a member of the College of Arms (they haven't got any women - yet!), but the ceremonial staff in the House of Lords move in the same sort of way as the heralds. They walk rather than march, especially since many of those behind them will be elderly or frail. In other words, you DON'T want the heralds to move as if they are commissioned officers!

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth
It appears that the heralds organise what everyone else is supposed to do, including the military, based on the detailed records, with timings, that they have kept from previous occasions. (See Rodney Dennys, chapter 21, Parliamentary Duties of the Heralds, and chapter 22, The Ceremonial Duties of the Heralds, in 'Heraldry and the Heralds', 1982.)
(sorry to snip.)

Thank you for the reference for Rodney Dennys (I do not remember what is mentioned in the book...).
However, why are you concerned with procession and military march only? (Because I said 'Pomp and Circumstance'...?)
I meant the appearance and style of military officers are more fit to the splendor or the atmosphere what these pictures give:
https://artetempire.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/herauts-d-armes-napoleon/
Loading Image...
(For the latter I am not mentioning the skill of horse-riding.)

And in my understanding that is why heralds were sometimes chosen among them in several countries (just for ceremonial roles,
again in my understanding what was/is expected to heralds did/do not differ between countries).

Actually ceremony was a blocker for a heraldist not to be a herald: Thomas Ulick Sadleir declined to accept the post of
Athlone Pursuivant because he was reluctant to perform the ceremonial duties. Athlone's salary was then 160 pound a year.
Instead, he chose to be appointed Deputy Ulster only whose function includes armorial duties only.
His predecessor, George Burtchaell held both offices concurrently.
These are mentioned in Susan Hood's _Royal Roots_, ch. 3 (I cannot give the exact page number now).
For me, I can easily imagine a hearldist who dislikes ceremonies but can hardly imagine a military officer who is reluctant
to join the same and also hardly imagine the former is the better performer than the latter.

Uemura Satoru

[Peter Howarth]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Howarth
It appears that the heralds organise what everyone else is supposed to do, including the military, based on the detailed records, with timings, that they have kept from previous occasions. (See Rodney Dennys, chapter 21, Parliamentary Duties of the Heralds, and chapter 22, The Ceremonial Duties of the Heralds, in 'Heraldry and the Heralds', 1982.)
(sorry to snip.)

Thank you for the reference for Rodney Dennys (I do not remember what is mentioned in the book...).
However, why are you concerned with procession and military march only? (Because I said 'Pomp and Circumstance'...?)
https://artetempire.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/herauts-d-armes-napoleon/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Harris_Brown_-_Proclamation_of_the_Accession_to_the_Throne_of_His_Majesty_King_George_V_at_Dublin,_June_1911.jpg
(For the latter I am not mentioning the skill of horse-riding.)
And in my understanding that is why heralds were sometimes chosen among them in several countries (just for ceremonial roles,
again in my understanding what was/is expected to heralds did/do not differ between countries).
Actually ceremony was a blocker for a heraldist not to be a herald: Thomas Ulick Sadleir declined to accept the post of
Athlone Pursuivant because he was reluctant to perform the ceremonial duties. Athlone's salary was then 160 pound a year.
Instead, he chose to be appointed Deputy Ulster only whose function includes armorial duties only.
His predecessor, George Burtchaell held both offices concurrently.
These are mentioned in Susan Hood's _Royal Roots_, ch. 3 (I cannot give the exact page number now).
For me, I can easily imagine a hearldist who dislikes ceremonies but can hardly imagine a military officer who is reluctant
to join the same and also hardly imagine the former is the better performer than the latter.
Uemura Satoru

I may never have been in the forces, but my father, brother and nephew were. I do not believe that a typical officer in the modern armed forces knows any more about Pomp and Circumstance than a civilian herald or even a cathedral precentor. Ceremonial affairs, over and above standard marching, are not a normal part of an officer's duties, especially those in branches like intelligence or engineering. Many will never have been involved; some may have taken part on a single occasion; a few specialists in the Guards regiments or in the leading military bands will know how to organise something large like the Changing of the Guard. But it is not something that can be expected from every commissioned officer.

I am sure you know much more than I do about other jurisdictions, but the position being advertised relates to England and Wales in the twenty-first century, and I'm having difficulty applying your examples to that position. Judging by what Rodney Dennys describes (which admittedly is forty years old or so), the direct involvement of heralds in ceremonial is limited to dressing up and taking part in processions. I was doing that as a choirboy and as a Boy Scout. The important part of the heralds' work is in organising the ceremonial. I am not convinced that the experience of a normal military officer brings any specialist qualities to the job apart from a general ability to organise other people. This is a valuable qualification, but not one that is limited to the military. Running a factory or business, a hospital or school can require the same amount of organisation.

I have enjoyed our discussion very much, but I don't think that either of us will convince the other to change their mind. I am happy to let you have the final say.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Howarth

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Howarth
It appears that the heralds organise what everyone else is supposed to do, including the military, based on the detailed records, with timings, that they have kept from previous occasions. (See Rodney Dennys, chapter 21, Parliamentary Duties of the Heralds, and chapter 22, The Ceremonial Duties of the Heralds, in 'Heraldry and the Heralds', 1982.)
(sorry to snip.)

Thank you for the reference for Rodney Dennys (I do not remember what is mentioned in the book...).
However, why are you concerned with procession and military march only? (Because I said 'Pomp and Circumstance'...?)
https://artetempire.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/herauts-d-armes-napoleon/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Harris_Brown_-_Proclamation_of_the_Accession_to_the_Throne_of_His_Majesty_King_George_V_at_Dublin,_June_1911.jpg
(For the latter I am not mentioning the skill of horse-riding.)
And in my understanding that is why heralds were sometimes chosen among them in several countries (just for ceremonial roles,
again in my understanding what was/is expected to heralds did/do not differ between countries).
Actually ceremony was a blocker for a heraldist not to be a herald: Thomas Ulick Sadleir declined to accept the post of
Athlone Pursuivant because he was reluctant to perform the ceremonial duties. Athlone's salary was then 160 pound a year.
Instead, he chose to be appointed Deputy Ulster only whose function includes armorial duties only.
His predecessor, George Burtchaell held both offices concurrently.
These are mentioned in Susan Hood's _Royal Roots_, ch. 3 (I cannot give the exact page number now).
For me, I can easily imagine a hearldist who dislikes ceremonies but can hardly imagine a military officer who is reluctant
to join the same and also hardly imagine the former is the better performer than the latter.
Uemura Satoru

I may never have been in the forces, but my father, brother and nephew were. I do not believe that a typical officer in the modern armed forces knows any more about Pomp and Circumstance than a civilian herald or even a cathedral precentor.
(Always sorry to snip.)

That is a good point. I thought, in the British chivalric orders, where (presumably) the role is mostly ceremonial,
the Kings of Arms have been invariably chosen from the military officers till the 21st century, because of the reason
what I told; and because of that, I thought, as for the ceremony things have been not changed in UK.
However, yes I am looking the matters from the other side of the earth. When it comes to what things are like in UK
today, I cannot say anything more convincing than the one who is actually living there.
It is convenient for me to have one single story to explain all, but it is a good occasion to know, for you it has
discrepancy with what you observe.

That being said, till now you have shown good much how the military experience is not required to heralds' work.
You also told, that clause is introduced to exclude certain people such as female. Then, in Japan, when any
corporation gives such a condition which apparently excludes one sex (mostly woman), the corporation shall give
good reason for that, i.e, how much the condition is required to perform that job. Otherwise the corporation will
violate the law.
From what you told, it sounds to me, in UK, there is no such law. Is it so? Or, do the Officers of Arms not know
such a law?

(In Japan we never give such a condition. Instead we accept all the applicants and silently filter out 'undesirable'
people; and just say 'we have chosen the best qualified person. Others are also good persons but less qualified.')

Uemura Satoru

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com
From what you told, it sounds to me, in UK, there is no such law. Is it so? Or, do the Officers of Arms not know
such a law?

As far as I checked there have been many such laws and the law currently in effect seems
to be this:

Equality Act 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15

The key term relevant for us now is "indirect discrimination" which is defined in:
Pt 2. Equality: key concepts -> Ch 2. Prohibited conduct -> 19 Indirect discrimination

To understand what is prohibited here, it may be easier to read web pages (so many pages
are there) explaining this, but in short, if an employer adds some condition which will
"weed out" certain group of people and if the employer "cannot show it to be a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim," then it will be a violation of law.
And as per the law the protected characteristics are "race" (here BAME for example),
"sex" (here female for example) and others.

Now, suppose I am an Officer of Arms and if one colored and aspirant woman without
"military experience" asks me, why that "military experience" condition exists, and
because of that she feels she is not eligible, theoretically, for me the possible answers
are:

a) "No, we do not want colored nor woman to be our colleague. That's why."
b) "We are sorry we cannot disclose the reason."
c) "No, there is no connection between 'military experience' and our job. There is also no
reason for us to add the condition. We yet added it."
d) "We are sorry but we do want someone who has 'military experience' because it has
great advantage for our job in xyz..."
e) "Don't worry, it's in 'Highly desirable,' not 'Essential.' If you think you satisfy
other 'Highly desirable' conditions then you are enough eligible."

In reality, for me, I can choose the last two ones only.
Among what I mentioned, new business will be more d), and ceremony will be e).

In the last case also where "Highly desirable" is optional, in my understanding, there must
be some connection between "military experience" and heralds' job: since it's optional,
it works for increasing the number of applicants only, i.e., those who has only one of
the options can apply. And if "military experience" has nothing to do with heralds' job,
there is no benefit for heralds to chose someone who has "military experience" only.
(However, I am not sure, for optional condition, how much justification is needed and,
how much the fitness for splendor can be a good reason. Make it more splendid is a good
idea, but...? May be we should think things are always like d).)

I slightly simplified my discussion, but I believe those I did not mention are minor points.

Uemura Satoru

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by p***@gmail.com
From what you told, it sounds to me, in UK, there is no such law. Is it so? Or, do the Officers of Arms not know
such a law?

As far as I checked there have been many such laws and the law currently in effect seems
Equality Act 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
Pt 2. Equality: key concepts -> Ch 2. Prohibited conduct -> 19 Indirect discrimination
To understand what is prohibited here, it may be easier to read web pages (so many pages
are there) explaining this, but in short, if an employer adds some condition which will
"weed out" certain group of people and if the employer "cannot show it to be a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim," then it will be a violation of law.
And as per the law the protected characteristics are "race" (here BAME for example),
"sex" (here female for example) and others.
Now, suppose I am an Officer of Arms and if one colored and aspirant woman without
"military experience" asks me, why that "military experience" condition exists, and
because of that she feels she is not eligible, theoretically, for me the possible answers
a) "No, we do not want colored nor woman to be our colleague. That's why."
b) "We are sorry we cannot disclose the reason."
c) "No, there is no connection between 'military experience' and our job. There is also no
reason for us to add the condition. We yet added it."
d) "We are sorry but we do want someone who has 'military experience' because it has
great advantage for our job in xyz..."
e) "Don't worry, it's in 'Highly desirable,' not 'Essential.' If you think you satisfy
other 'Highly desirable' conditions then you are enough eligible."
In reality, for me, I can choose the last two ones only.
Among what I mentioned, new business will be more d), and ceremony will be e).
In the last case also where "Highly desirable" is optional, in my understanding, there must
be some connection between "military experience" and heralds' job: since it's optional,
it works for increasing the number of applicants only, i.e., those who has only one of
the options can apply. And if "military experience" has nothing to do with heralds' job,
there is no benefit for heralds to chose someone who has "military experience" only.
(However, I am not sure, for optional condition, how much justification is needed and,
how much the fitness for splendor can be a good reason. Make it more splendid is a good
idea, but...? May be we should think things are always like d).)
I slightly simplified my discussion, but I believe those I did not mention are minor points.
Uemura Satoru

While this is doubtless what the writers of British anti-discrimination law intended, enforcing it that way is probably impossible. Judges do not understand the role as well as the denizens of rec.heraldry, which means the College can make up almost anything they want and the Judge will have no way to know it's wrong. If the College says that they prefer someone with military experience because military orders and parades are part of the job the Judge is likely to go along with it. Particularly since the white, upper-class, male, officer who got the job would probably be a combat veteran.

Which means Mr. Howarth could well be right. This could be a way to exclude certain people from the job without admitting it. It could also be the opposite: they've got an extremely-not-Protestant ethnic Pakistani guy (who speaks with a brutal working-class accent) they really want to hire. He's got a commission, and a glittering combat record, so when he gets hired the upper-class-twits won't be able to second-guess them.

Or it could be neither. Somebody at the College has decided to support the troops by hiring one. A strike against this theory is that they specified the person be a Commissioned Officer. Many Sergeant-level-people would be perfectly good heralds, but a Sergeant is an NCO, and therefore much more likely to be working class.

So I'm leaning towards "Howarth is right." But, depending on their ultimate decision, I am open to changing my mind.

Nick

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by n***@gmail.com
While this is doubtless what the writers of British anti-discrimination law intended, enforcing it that way is probably impossible. Judges do not understand the role as well as the denizens of rec.heraldry, which means the College can make up almost anything they want and the Judge will have no way to know it's wrong.

For me, there is a gap between "They can fabricate any justification to cheat Judges" and
"They actually do cheating." I see no reason to think like this: "They can cheat Judges then
they surely do it."

Post by n***@gmail.com
Which means Mr. Howarth could well be right. This could be a way to exclude certain people from the job without admitting it.

I am concerned with justification (or connection with heralds' job) only. I mentioned
indirect discrimination just to show the law requires justification for it (and that is
what I have been trying to find).
So I have no comment for what you mentioned here.

(How much I have effectively shown the connection is another matter.)

Post by n***@gmail.com
Or it could be neither. Somebody at the College has decided to support the troops by hiring one.

I see no connection between "support" and heralds' job. For this kind of justification (i.e.,
justification apart from the connection with heralds' job), we should say "Somebody at the
College has decided to support the troops. The background why I came to this idea is ..."
For me, however it is almost impossible to give any logic and/or evidence to fill the blank.

Uemura Satoru

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Howarth
Perhaps they feel that the military will already have weeded out
'undesirables' such as those who are BAME, working class or female.

Has there ever been a officer at the College of Arms who wasn't a white,
nominally Christian, able-bodied man? For that matter, has there every
been one who didn't attend a public school?

Richard

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Howarth
'undesirables' such as those who are BAME, working class or female.

Has there ever been a officer at the College of Arms who wasn't a white,
nominally Christian, able-bodied man? For that matter, has there every
been one who didn't attend a public school?

As far as I remember Sir Isaac Heard was not so much educated and was able-bodied
(if my memory is correct Wagner gave in his _Heralds of England_, some anecdotes
how he was vigorous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Heard

Sir Conrad Swan was born in Canada and of Polish descent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Swan

John de Havilland was born in the United States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Havilland_(officer_of_arms)

Long back Roger Machado was of Portuguese origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Machado_(officer_of_arms)

The latter three were however just born in the foreign countries and surely white.

If we dig into this book, I think we can find heralds of humble origin and/or who
were modestly educated.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/bk16

To my knowledge, I do not know any non-white English herald.

Uemura Satoru