Notes Continued. page 5

back to page 4

 

Dr William Bloom speaking as both a former governor of St. Dunstan’s School and a trustee of the Glastonbury Abbey Retreat House, supported Dan Salter’s opinion that this was an opportunity for Glastonbury – commenting that it could bean engaging project for children, integrating local history into the local schools; helping to create a new Coat-of-Arms that “everyone would know” for “a Town Council who live in the 21st Century”. Dr Bloom felt that ‘money’ was not a good enough reason to oppose the potential ‘silver lining’ for the town; reflecting that the process should not get stuck on ‘theTown Council and money’:  “it would be interesting to engage the children to brief theCollege of Arms” ... “money is not a reason to stop!” Daniel Salter re-stated that this was an opportunity for a “positive change” – for the Town Council to have “something that is credible; something that could be happily and proudly displayed”. Reiterating that money could be raised from local businesses to support the petition to the

College of Arms, for which the businesses contributing could receive a licence to use the

Glastonbury’s ‘official’ Coat-of-Arms.

Lokabandhu, speaking as a member of the Triratna Buddhist Community, reflected that the discussion seemed to hinge on three points:

1. “Do we want to change?”

2. “What is the process?”

3. “What might it look like?”

Lokabandhu suggested that to progress, the group should perhaps answer the first question. He felt that an aspect of the answer to the first question was, “We could do better!” The motto felt “out of date”:

“Symbols matter; everyone has a symbol. We need a symbol that says, ‘Glastonbury is great’!”

Cllr Jon Cousins reminded the group of Geoffrey Ashe’s letter to the Town Council, in which he suggested an appropriate alternative to the current civic motto– ‘Floreat Ecclesia Anglicana’ (May the Church of England Flourish) – could be ‘Floreat Glastonia’ (May Glastonbury Flourish). Sue Oxley felt that ‘Floreat Glastonia’ would make a simple and lasting motto.

Cllr Jim Barron wondered what the vicar of St. John’s would think of it all.

In Cllr Barron’s opinion, the Church of England was the official religion of the Country, and the Queen was the head of the Church.

Dr William Bloom, whilst making it clear that he was NOT speaking and could not speak on behalf of Glastonbury’s Anglican vicar or the Anglican community felt that as a trustee of the Glastonbury Abbey Retreat House, he could – however –convey that the Church of England was interested in inclusion; seeking to build up good relations with people of other faith traditions, and where possible to co-operate with them in service to society.

Cllr Jon Cousins read a message to the group from Mayor Sue Thurgood, who could not attend due to Mayoral duties.

Mayor Sue Thurgood wrote: “we need to look to the future for an emblem for the Town Crest and after speaking to John Martineau I am more convinced that if we want to get all parties onside we need a geometric design incorporating the important things that the Town stands for and using ‘Unity through Diversity’ as our mission statement –although this may already be appropriated by other places – so why not ‘Let Glastonbury Flourish’ or indeed ‘Golden Glastonbury’.”

Cllr Cousins went on to relay the Mayor’s feeling that “you can’t alter history – what has happened in the past should stay in the past and not bring dissention and division into the future!”

Barry Taylor, speaking as a co-founder of a number of spiritually based organisations in Glastonbury, including The Glastonbury Trust, felt that “getting the support of the whole town is critical in moving forward”.

Ishtar Dingir thought that the group should move away from asking if the existing heraldry is a “bad symbol”. Daniel Salter agreed with Ishtar Dingir, saying that it was important to pay respect to everyone who served under the current Coat-of-Arms, and that it had its honourable place in the town’s history.

Jamuna Fisher, speaking as a community development worker, and member of Hare Krishna, suggested that the group seemed to be coming to a solution that would involve the children of the town, and felt that this was appropriate.

David Greenway, the Town Crier, said that in light of the legal issues, he felt uncertain about the existing heraldry. “We have to move forward; it would be great to include the schools for ideas”.

Dreow Bennett, speaking as Archdruid of Glastonbury, suggested that even though most people might not have recognised the ‘meaning’ of the existing heraldry, the fact remained that it “means something!” “We have to respect the Monarch, and be socio-politically correct”. He added that whatever suggestions came forward, it should be kept simple, and represent “a bridge between the Church and the rest”.

Cllr Jim Barron said he had “no problem with the existing shield, and no problem with change”. He added that “the answer lies with the representatives of the people” ..

Cllr Steven Henderson said that he was “not against change”; however, he felt that the town should look for different ways of funding it. He added that he looked forward to what the Town Council would choose in the end. Lokabandhu commented that “change was exciting”; he continued to feel that an important element was “we could do better, and come up with an appropriate symbol”.

Lokabandhu added that the process was really important, and felt strongly that this should involve the town’s children.

Dr William Bloom added that if the town’s children were involved it would be a history project as well as an arts project.

Cllr John Coles felt that it had been a constructive meeting, but reminded the group not to change for the sake of change: “the people of the town should have their say!”

[Cllr Coles left the meeting]

Lokabandhu suggested that the group should take a vote on “Do we want to change?” – and then perhaps the next meeting could look at the ‘process’ that this would involve.

The vote was unanimous in favour.

It was resolved that the main agenda for the next meeting would look at‘the process’.

The time and date for the next meeting was set for 7 pm, Thursday 13th February2014, in the Council Chamber, Glastonbury Town Hall.

Notes taken by Cllr Jon Cousins.

 

Notes to the 3rd meeting of the ‘Town Council’s Heraldry’ Working Group,

7 pm, Thursday, 13th February 2014 at Glastonbury Town Hall.

Attending: Cllr Alyson Black, Dr William Bloom (Trustee of the Glastonbury Abbey Retreat House), Cllr John Coles, Cllr Jon Cousins, Ishtar Dingir (Shamanic path), Jamuna Fisher (Community Worker, Hare Krishna), David Greenway (Town Crier), Lokabandhu (Triratna Buddhist Community), Cllr Denise Michell, Daniel Slater (Advising on Heraldry; in contact with the College of Arms), Barry Taylor (Co-founder Glastonbury Trust, etc.)

Apologies: Cllr Jim Barron, Cllr Steven Henderson, Rev David MacGeoch (Church of England), John Martineau (Advising on Geometry/Design), Sue Oxley (member of Catholic congregation), Cllr Sue Thurgood (Mayor)

 

Cllr Jon Cousins opened the meeting with a brief review of the Notes from the previous meeting.

Two changes had been advised by Dr William Bloom, and the Notes were amended.

The agenda for the evening was to consider the ‘Process’.

Cllr Cousins opened the table up for discussion.

Cllr Alyson Black stated that a key aspect was the involvement of the schools. However, she felt that whatever instruction was given to the children, it needed to have a ‘theme’.

Ishtar Dingir asked for some clarity about the ‘limitations’ that would be imposed by the College of Arms – as these would have bearing on the instructions given to the school children.

David Greenway suggested that in addition to the school children, there was a wealth of artists and creative talent within the town that could also be involved.

Dr William Bloom told the group that he had researched how other towns had approached this issue, and consulted with a friend who had facilitated this process. Dr Bloom stressed that although there would be consultation, the final decision rests with the Council; it is the Council that briefs the College of Arms.

The process would involve the community – for instance, “what the school children think a good Coat-of-Arms would look like”. However, the suggestions would not automatically become the ‘brief’.

The Town Council make the decision, but involve the community to “glean ideas”.

Dr Bloom felt the time scale involved would be “a couple of years”: artist workshops; school project; presentation in the High Street, etc.

Daniel Salter, in answering Cllr Black’s question, stated that there were various codes which the College of Arms followed - relating to colours, and ‘metals’ (gold,silver/ white), etc., however the main restriction form the College of Arms would be “was it unique enough?”

Dr Bloom continued that he had some pdf files of the methodologies used in previous consultations of this type – some of which have used the internet – if these would be useful to the group.

Cllr Cousins asked Dr Bloom if he could circulate these.

 Cllr Denise Michell suggested that the process in the school could “ride on the back of a lesson on history”.

Dr Bloom agreed that this would be a ‘local history’, with the involvement of theHeadmaster.

Jamuna Fisher thought that by involving the children of the town, their parents would also become involved; together with a presentation in the High Street, it would help “raise the community’s consciousness”.

Cllr John Coles suggested that the project should be the “senior school only; younger children would be out of their depth.”

Cllr Michell replied that in the Promoting Glastonbury Committee of the Town Council there was a proposal for a ‘flag’ project, and that perhaps the younger children could be involved with this.

Barry Taylor wondered that, if the Town Council are to make the result of the process the ‘Town Crest’, “then are they prepared to say so?”

He suggested that the starting point for the process must be the Town Council stating: “we wish to change the shield”!

There was general agreement with Barry Taylor’s statement.

Lokabandhu asked “who needs to be on board?” Suggesting that in addition to those already mentioned (children, artists, etc.) the process must also involve local business people, and the town’s elders:

The local historians; the experts – people such as Geoffrey Ashe.

Cllr Coles asked Cllr Cousins “Why was the motion put forward, what were the reasons?” Cllr Cousins replied that the motion’s origins could be traced back to Cllr Bill Knight’s Mayoral year [2010/11], when Cllr Knight had asked Cllr Cousins if he could do some research on the number of faiths, spiritual paths and beliefs, which were held in Glastonbury. Cllr Cousins said that through his research, he was surprised to discover 75 different faiths present in the town – and that when he compared his list with that of the Pilgrim Reception Centre, he discovered they had three additional ones to add to the list.

Cllr Cousins said that Cllr Knight based the‘Unity Through Diversity’ celebration on this information – and that 54 faiths, creed,and paths took part in that event.

Cllr Cousins said that the sheer quantity of different faiths present in the Town was the key to the motion – stating that when considering the diversity of religion and belief, was it appropriate for the Town Council to have a Coat-of-Arms and Motto that clearly championed only one faith.

Cllr Coles asked Cllr Cousins if he knew of anyone who was offended by the shield.

Cllr Cousins replied that one member of the Working Group had clearly stated at the first meeting that they were offended by it. Cllr Cousins felt that Cllr Coles bringing the issue up at that point was a ‘red herring’ in a discussion on the process.

Cllr Coles talked about the Church of England, and how it had changed. Making it clear that he had nothing against women, personally – Cllr Coles cited the impact of women becoming Vicars, the current proposal for women Bishops. He said that he felt the fall in attendance of the Church of England Pilgrimage in the town could be linked to this, and told the group that he felt – as a result – many people were looking toward the Catholic faith.

Ishtar Dingir reflected to Cllr Coles that there were changes happening in the town, and in the world – that when she first came to visit the town in 1970, she experienced discrimination because she was considered a ‘hippy’.

Cllr Coles said that ‘Glastonians’, born and bred in the town “are sad to see the types of shops here.”Daniel Salter said that the [Central Somerset Gazette] newspaper’s report on the original motion focused on the ‘religious split’. He recalled that the paper had tried to suggest the vilification of the current Coat-of-Arms and some form of retribution. He suggested that the group should ‘de-faith’ the issue. Daniel Salter continued that the process should be “taking history with us – the pride we should have in the existing Coat-of-Arms – to honour the past; not eclipse it”.

Ishtar Dingir suggested that “everyone in the world would recognise the Tor as an emblem for Glastonbury” – reflecting, “We can’t have everyone’s faith in Glastonbury represented on the shield, as there are too many!”

Daniel Salter suggested that the group would need to be able to answer the question: “Why do you want a new shield?”

Jamuna Fisher suggested that it was a case of consciousness raising; “we need to put it out there in a positive way”. He felt that the group should suggest “some ways to bring in the older side of the town”. However, he reflected, “we will never please everyone”. In addition he was concerned that the group may become stuck if it continued to re-visit issues that he felt they had moved on from the group had agreed to change: “We agreed we could do better”. He added, “I do not have a long history in Glastonbury, but I hope to have a long future. The question is "How do we take people with us?”

Barry Taylor stated: “This is the elephant in the room – should we name it? The difference between the market and the spiritual – the ‘Market’ Town and the ‘Pilgrimage’Town”. He went on to say that there were in Glastonbury two groups who only recognise their ‘side’ of the town. “The ‘whole’ is not recognised. The question is: Can we recognise the two halves?”

Dr William Bloom asked what is the purpose of the meeting/Working Group.

Daniel Salter stated, “We need a clear plan”, reflecting that whilst the legality of the current heraldry “is not quite right”; he was unclear as to what the existing heraldry was. Therefore, he asked the group – for the sake of clarity – if it was possible to define the current Coat-of-Arms. Daniel Salter asked this because he was aware that there were different versions of the heraldry recorded in various historical documents.

Was the Heraldry the pendant on the Mayoral Chain-of-Office (with the Crest, shield, and motto), or the emblem stitched on the covers of the ‘thrones’ of the Mayor in the Council Chamber (the Mitre and Cross Crosiers on a blue background), or another version of the emblem? He wondered, for instance, if the Working group were thinking that the change would be limited to just changing the motto – whilst keeping the shield with the Mitre and Cross Crosiers.

There was some discussion between the group as to the relevance of this question. Cllr Cousins felt that defining the exact heraldry was slightly irrelevant as all versions of the existing Arms (seals, pendants, etc.) were ‘unlawful’ since Glastonbury did not have the ‘Right to Arms’. However, he gave a brief history of the current heraldry, as far as he was aware. Stating that it was probably designed by Lord Peter King, and was certainly in use in the early years of 18th Century.

Cllr Cousins stated that some long serving Councillors had mentioned to him that it was originally the seal of the Glastonbury Navigation and Canal Company, however he felt this was a misconception that arose from the Corporation’s seal being used on the Canal Company’s documentation in the 1830s – the Canal Company being instigated by the Town Clerk – who, when the Canal became bankrupt absconded with the Corporation’s assets, including the Mayoral Chain-of-Office [circa 1840].

Cllr Coles humorously interjecting “he was a Prat!” as the name of the Clerk was indeed, Richard Periam Prat.

Cllr Cousins continued that a new Chain of Office pendant was made as a replica of the pre 1840 one, and this is the Coat-of-Arms depicted in the early paintings displayed in the Council Chamber – which is the same as the current pendant. As far as can be surmised, this has been the Arms on the Mayoral pendant from its inception, and therefore, in Cllr Cousins’ opinion, this was the heraldry according to Dr Adam Stout. 

The earliest reference is in the ‘Glastonbury diary’ of John Cannon, written in the 1730s – describing the ‘Corporation Common Seal’ as “Silver with a Mitre and Croziers having this motto Floreat Ecclesiae Anglie”.

There was some discussion around the nature of ‘the offence’ inherent in the existing Mayoral pendant – both Dan Salter and Cllr Coles questioning if it really was an offence.

Cllr Cousins replied that it was a civil offence, noting that if Glastonbury was under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Heralds, the Town Council would have already prosecuted, as “they are more fierce about the legality of Arms than their English counterparts”. However, the Windsor Herald had informed Cllr Cousins that neither the College of Arms nor Buckingham Palace would press charges – because it would cause a considerable embarrassment to the Royal family. The implication from Windsor Herald being that it was the duty of Glastonbury Town Council to get its own house in order ..

Daniel Salter suggested that the group could either protect the existing Coat-of-Arms, by honouring its place in history; having it on displayed in the Town Hall, etc. Or they could choose a ‘soft option’, such as the ‘Blue Cross Crosiers and Mitre’ with an alternative motto.

Cllr Cousins felt that it would be correct to honour the existing Coat-of-Arms, and its place in history. However, he reminded the group that at the previous meeting Lokabandhu had suggested there were three things the group needed to consider

1) “do we want change?” – which had received a unanimous vote as the end of the previous meeting

2) the ‘process’ – which was the agenda for the current meeting;

3) “what will it look like?”.

Cllr Cousins felt that in following Daniel Salter’s line of discourse, the group was in danger of considering “what will it look like?”, rather than the ‘process’.

Dr William Bloom suggested that the group needed to come back to the process, looking at project management. He stated that there was a known out-come – a briefing to the College of Arms!

 

         Prior to this, there would have to be the Town Council’s approval for the briefing.

 

 

                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                continued  link to page 6