Page 4
Notes:
* Costs kept to a minimum with the committee, and partner organisations such as the local paper, school, etc., taking on the majority of the tasks.
** Primarily utilising existing networks, local press, Council website, social media.
*** Thomas Fattorini Ltd.=2 x sterling silver pendant with gold plate. Cost would be half for base metal pendants.
**** The creation of a new die for the Town Council’s existing embossing press may cost less than £100 - however, as the press is fairly old, the budgeted figure anticipates the need for a new embossing press, etc.
Analysis and Evaluation will be undertaken by a Working Group.
Raising the funds:
The Working Group suggests that the cost of the process should not have to be met by the local Council Tax payer.It is feasible that the funds required could be raised through contributions from individuals and organisations.
A legal emblem or a granted Coat-of-Arms is ‘property’.
It would be the Town Council’s asset, and as such it has value. Glastonbury’s provenance – its history, iconic status, and distinction – have an intrinsic value.
The value of Glastonbury’s name was highlighted fully to the Town Council when it became registered by Glastonbury Festival Ltd. The use of the Tor as an integral part of the Olympic Opening Ceremony in 2012 shows the power of our most famous landmark on the national psyche.
The international attention generated by the destruction of the Holy Thorn reminds us of how significant our home is to people around the world.
It is possible to have ‘heraldic badges’, the use of which may be licensed.
These licences could be permitted to businesses and organisations in the town – or even outside of it – who might wish to financially support the creation and design of a new symbol or a petition to the College of Arms. For example, any businesses or organisation contributing £1,000 could receive an authorization to use Glastonbury’s ‘official’ Coat-of-Arms as a badge of honour in perpetuity.
Notes to the Heraldry Working Group meetings
Compiled by Cllr Jon Cousins
Feedback from the 1st Working Group meeting,7 pm, Wednesday, 23rd October 2013
at Glastonbury Town Hall
The charge of the Working Group was to consider the appropriateness of the Town Council’s Heraldic Device. Looking at the elements of the Town Council’s heraldry in turn:
The Crest:
The full achievement of the Royal Coat-of-Arms of Queen Anne.
According to the Windsor Herald at the College of Arms,
The Town Council’s Crest is an offence to Her Majesty, as the Arms are for the sole use of the Sovereign and can, by extension be used by her government, police force and judiciary, he quite categorically stated: When he heard that the Town Council did not consider that the offence an issue, and believed that the College of Arms would not prosecute – the Windsor Herald responded by saying that neither the College of Arms or the Lord Chamberlain’s Office at Buckingham Palace or from the Home Secretary would resort to taking action against a Town Council: It was the Town Council who should resolve the situation. Any other action would cause considerable embarrassment to the Royal family ...
He commented that: “It is sad that your Council cannot show respect or set an example.”
The Motto:
Floreat Ecclesia Anglicana – ‘Let the Church of England Flourish’.
Glastonbury is a town seen by many as important spiritual centre, with a unique history and significance. It has a diverse and varied population, which is reflected in wide-ranging collection of spiritual paths, creeds, and faiths practiced by the inhabitants.
As a public body, the Town Council has a general duty to uphold equality legislation, and to reflect the whole community. A motto that is clearly partisan to one section of the Town’s population clearly does not reflect this. Our esteemed historian, Geoffrey Ashe MBE has suggested,
“let the Latin inscription of the town read ‘Floreat Glastonia’ (Let Glastonbury flourish)”.
As commented at the Working Group meeting – “who could argue against that?”
The Shield:
Field gules; charged with two croziers in saltire behind a mitre.
The emblems or devices occupying the ‘field’ of a shield have a particular significance or meaning, their origins as a form of visual identification in a world of limited literacy.
More or less obvious references; these are designed to be ‘read’ by the observer.
The items on the Town Council’s shield are the two croziers [pastoral staffs or crooks] crossed in an X shape behind a mitre – and are definitely references to the Abbot of Glastonbury, and by implication the Abbey itself. However, the position of these emblems on the shield is unusual – for they are traditionally to be found in English heraldry as the ‘helm’ and ‘supporters’ of an ecclesiastical shield.
With an ecclesiastical shield, the Mitre would be placed above the shield as the helm, (the position currently occupied by the Royal Arms), whilst the crossed croziers would be the supporters of the shield. This was certainly the case with the Abbey’s shield – incidentally, the only shield that has ever been granted to ‘Glastonbury’. When considering the particular significance or meaning of charging (placing) these emblems on the shield, the history of Glastonbury is significant!
Until 1539, Glastonbury was independent of Monarchy and State.
A special privilege – according to early legends – granted the ‘12 Hides’ at Glastonbury’s foundation by King Arviragus. This privilege was reaffirmed and expanded by no less than seven Kings: Centwine (682), Ine (704), Edmund I (944) Edgar (965), William II (1088), Henry II (1186), & Edward 1 (1278). In 1539, during the Reformation of the Church, Henry VIII annulled the privilege and the Vicar General, Thomas Cromwell, destroyed the Abbey ... murdering the last Abbot – Richard Whiting – who, as part of his gruesome execution, was beheaded and his body quartered ...
One reading of the removal of the ecclesiastical helm (the Mitre) and its placement on the shield, is that it represents the beheading of Abbot Whiting; whilst the cross crosiers signify his quartered body.
This reading is expounded by the placement of the full achievement of the Royal Coat-of-Arms above the shield (signifying that the Monarchy has replaced the Abbot and that Glastonbury is no longer independent), and the motto ...
During the Working Party it was stated that “no one would be offended by the shield”, to which a Roman Catholic present said: “I am offended”.
Finally, the Windsor Herald has also confirmed that Glastonbury does not have a Right to Arms.
“Without a Grant of Arms on behalf of the Crown, Glastonbury Town Council should not be currently using a Coat-of-Arms, in any form.”
With this in mind, I feel that the Working Group have a duty to come up with a proposed solution that can address the issues; consider an appropriate emblem and motto that will represent the whole of Glastonbury, and look to the future.
Notes to the meeting of the ‘Town Council’s Heraldry’ Working Group,
7 pm, Thursday, 30th January 2014 at Glastonbury Town Hall.
Attending: Cllr Denise Michell, Barry Taylor, Dr William Bloom, Cllr StephenShepherd, Ishtar Dingir, Cllr Alyson Black, Daniel Slater, Sue Oxley, Jamuna Fisher,David Greenway (Town Crier), Dreow Bennett (Archdruid of Glastonbury), Cllr JimBarron, Cllr Steven Henderson, Lokabandhu, Cllr John Coles, Cllr Jon Cousins
Apologies: Cllr Sue Thurgood (Mayor), Rev David MacGeoch, Morgana West, JohnMartineau,
Jane Czornij (Town Clerk)
The meeting opened with a review of the purpose of the Working Group:
“To consider the appropriateness of the Town Council’s Heraldry.”
Cllr Jon Cousins, the proposer of the motion, gave a brief summary of the issues raised and discussed at the previous meeting with relation to the current Crest, Shield, and Motto.
The Crest – The full achievement of Queen Anne – the use of which is an offence.
The Shield and Motto – regardless of their interpretation and reading – are biased to one religion, and therefore not representative of the whole community.
The College of Arms has never granted Glastonbury Town Council the ‘Right to Arms’, and therefore the use of the current heraldry by the Council is, in itself,unlawful.
Cllr Cousins then asked the group to consider these issues in the context of relevant pieces of legislation:
1) The Town Council’s statutory Equality Duty to “promote and inclusive culture; torespect and value differences of everyone; to prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation; to promote and foster good relations throughout the community between people of different groups” – as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
2) The Town Council’s responsibility to “uphold the law and on all occasions act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place on them.”
Cllr Steven Henderson raised several points in relation to the first meeting of the Working Group.
Cllr Henderson felt Cllr Cousins, in raising the issue – and through presenting a certain reading of the Coat-of-Arms – had given people“instruction to be offended”.
Cllr Henderson stated he was offended at the first meeting by Cllr Cousins comparison of the Nazi Swastika to the Town Council’s current heraldry – stating that an inference was made that somehow related to the actions of the Town Council to those of the Nazi regime.
In addition, Cllr Henderson was apprehensive that, in trying to change the Coat-of-Arms to “fit in with everyone”, the Working Group would start a process that could not be resolved.
“We could change it every 20 years!”
Cllr Henderson was concerned that at the previous meeting the Abbey was referred to as “a pile of rocks, and not relevant”. Furthermore, Cllr Henderson stated that the current Coat of Arms
“Can’t be a big deal – as they have let it stand for 300 years.”
In conclusion, Cllr Henderson said: “If we did go for a new Coat-of-Arms, in a way that represented the Town, it would not be a priority.”
He felt that the people of the Town would see it as “a waste of money” in this time of austerity.
Cllr Cousins replied that his reference to the Swastika at the previous meeting was in response to a comment the Mayor, Sue Thurgood, had made about the current heraldry being “instantly recognised” whenever she wore the Mayoral Chain of Office.
Cllr Cousins said he had used the comparison of the Swastika to illustrate how being ‘instantly recognisable’ was not necessarily a valid reason for the use of a symbol.
Cllr Cousins apologised if his comment had caused offence, and said that he certainly did not mean to imply any comparison between the Town Council and theNazi regime.
Sue Oxley, speaking as a member of the Catholic faith, did not agree with Cllr Henderson’s summation that Cllr Cousins had ‘instructed people to be offended’,she said she would term Cllr Cousins’ presentation of the subject as: “consciousness raising”.
Cllr Henderson replied that it was a shame that Cllr Cousins had raised the issue in the first place, and that the matter could not be put “back in the bottle”.
Cllr Barron stated that until the issue was raised, 99% of the people didn’t know about the Town Council’s Coat-of-Arms: “people are not interested.”
Ishtar Dingir, speaking as a Shaman, commented on the power of symbols, and felt that the number of representatives from different backgrounds sat around the table indicated that people were interested.
Cllr Cousins asked Daniel Salter – a local person with some knowledge of heraldry; who is in contact with the College of Arms – to give the group a brief overview of the historical context of heraldry.
Daniel Salter told the group that heraldry originated as a form of identifying people in battle.
Explaining how the Monarch could call upon anyone who had land to fight, and the Coat-of-Arms was the emblem by which one could tell which side someone was on.He went on to say that, originally, Coat-of-Arms were only granted to individuals; and only those who were granted had
the right to use them. For instance, having the same surname as someone with arms did not confer the right to use them. In addition, he told the group that today, the College of Arms grants the right to use a Coat-of-Arms to individuals and to corporate bodies, such as Town Councils. Adding that the purpose of Civic Arms is to have “something you can feel incorporated and recognised by” – using symbols which might represent ‘town’ – for Glastonbury this could be the Abbey, etc.
Daniel Salter then commented on the Town Council’s current heraldry, stating that there was some discrepancy between the colours used on the shield – that it is sometimes referenced as blue instead of red. He admitted that the motto was “a bit odd”, describing the
over-all device as “a bit of a mishmash”. He felt that the symbols were “open to interpretation”, and that there were “a number of interpretations that could be implied”: However, “we [the Working Group] are not the ‘history police’; we will never know what it means.”
Daniel Slater concluded by saying that this was a wonderful opportunity for Glastonbury as a town to be included in the College of Arms. Indeed, the Town Council’s civic heraldry might be seen as “more credible with a Coat-of-Arms designed by the College of Arms.
”He felt that the Town Council could embrace this opportunity in a positive manner:
“Not to change because it is bad, but because it is something brilliant for the new millennium!”
The Town Council affirming, “We represent different factions.” Adding that a granted Coat-of-arms has some value, and could be licensed to other businesses and organisations in the town who
might wish to financially support a petition to the College of Arms.
Cllr John Coles said that many Royals had visited Glastonbury over the years, and yet there had been no debate about the Coat-of-Arms. Therefore, he questioned if it was really an offence. Cllr Coles went on to state that as Mayor every time he wore the Chain of Office, people would always
come up and ask about the Coat-of-Arms, and he would tell them the story.
Several members of the group commented that if the emblem on the Mayoral Chain was changed, this would not stop people asking about the new emblem: “there might be a better story to tell!
Continued link to page 5
I