Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Queensland restores Royal Arms

What would you rather have as a symbol of a proud state, a royal coat of arms with all of the beautiful heraldry, history, tradition and gravitas that it represents?




Or this depressing blob, which signifies what exactly, other than the false, the ugly and the vacant? We are overjoyed that sanity has prevailed in Queensland, and that the government there has reverted back to the resplendence of its monarchical heritage.


3 comments:

  1. I could pose a similar question about the Canadian flag.

    The highly distinctive and dignified Red Ensign or the child-style Maple leaf flag?

    They also did something similar in Newfoundland, where the flag is now a union jack "logo", perhaps fit to promote a municipal swimming pool but not really befitting of the oldest English claim in North America.

    Why do they do it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There has been a general cheapening of symbolism into something akin to corporate branding. The trend has been pretty pervasive everywhere, with some exceptions. It won't be before long that we will all be handing in our royal coated passports for a new transnational document that shows children holding hands under a rainbow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I loathe the "Beattie Burger" - so named after the premier that introduced it - it never actually officially replaced the Arms. They always remained in existence (if under-used). It always looked odd to see the "Burger" after years of having the Arms on top of the Executive Building on George Street.

    ReplyDelete