[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The article in the Citizen newspaper shows that they have modified the original coat of arms-

Quote-Coun Britcliffe said the cost of the rebrand would be minimal because the crest was already in existence and had been worked on by an in-house graphic designer

The words 'in house' says it all - some local clerk with an artistic bent, has made considerable changes, so that it bears no resemblance to the original coat of arms we remember.

It would be interesting to know whether permission was sought for the changes from the national body who oversees these things - I suspect 'no'

Maybe they have made the coat of arms so similar to one which already exists that it has incensed the member who alleges it is his.

Is this yet another Britcliffe faux pas?

PS why alter it anyway - the original was nicer

So does that mean that the HBC coat of arms isn't one granted by the official bods but a revamp of the old Accy one by somebody who has no authority to do so? In which case shouldn't The Real Michael have brought the matter to the attention of those who would/could do something about it? Why whinge about it on here? If it's really an unofficial creation then it needs to be sorted out. You can't just design yourself a coat of arms and adopt it without official permission. Not even Peter Britcliffe can get away with that surely.