"Monarchial crown'

[regimentalrogue]

Originally Posted by Frank Kelley

It is merely a direct reference to the monarch.

This is the appropriate definition. We should acknowledge that badge collectors have a "language" for describing badges, and museum professionals have a different "language," and the two do not necessarily align in all respects.

Originally Posted by jf42

I don't think so, Leigh, as the item is dated specifically to 1902-1935. 'KC' to the initiated.

Initiated in what, the colloquial language of badge wear and collecting by non-museum professionals?

In military service and badge collecting, many of us have become quite comfortable with the concept of "King's Crown (KC)" for the Tudor crown and "Victoria's Crown (QVC)" or "Queen's Crown (QC)" for various depiction of St Edward's crowns depending on the period of the badge. But it is the usage of QVC, KC, QC that is the creative and unofficial shorthand, one which is based on the coincidence that Edward VII, George V, and George VI used the Tudor Crown, while Victoria and Elizabeth II used St Edwards patterns. The underlying assertion that they are related to the gender of the monarch is an error long overlooked by the ease of use.

All too often I have heard the assertion that when Charles takes the throne, then automatically all badge designs with crowns will have to change (leaving the inference that a return to the "King's crown" will naturally result. But who among us can say with certainty what Charles' cypher will look like, and what crown design he will approve? There is no published rule to my knowledge that says he must change, or must use the Tudor crown, or cannot continue to use a St Edward's crown design. The overuse of KC/QC has led to assumptions that are not supportable.

[jf42]

Originally Posted by regimentalrogue

This is the appropriate definition. We should acknowledge that badge collectors have a "language" for describing badges, and museum professionals have a different "language," and the two do not necessarily align in all respects.

Initiated in what, the colloquial language of badge wear and collecting by non-museum professionals?.

Indeed. Hence my reference to the 'initiated.' I prefer not to hem words with inverted commas unless necessary but perhaps it would have helped.

So, 'monarchial' is a technical term that museum curators would use to distinguish what I will call a royal crown from, say, a mural crown or naval crown- which is what I was looking to establish. Thank you. Perhaps it also serves in the museum lexicon to distinguish from the ducal coronet and other coronal emblems. Thank you.

Leigh, I misread your previous post. Indeed, the term avoids reference to the specific crown represented.

I am still curious as to the advantage achieved by the use of 'monarchial' over 'royal', for instance,; having the advantage of being shorter, if nothing else, but they are not asking me.

[Frank Kelley]

Yes, I think it is, certainly grammatically correct, a direct reference to the sovereigns crown, it is important to bare in mind that a great many people who visit the NAM do not collect badges and have little interest in them, if any whatsoever.

Originally Posted by regimentalrogue

This is the appropriate definition. We should acknowledge that badge collectors have a "language" for describing badges, and museum professionals have a different "language," and the two do not necessarily align in all respects.



Initiated in what, the colloquial language of badge wear and collecting by non-museum professionals?

In military service and badge collecting, many of us have become quite comfortable with the concept of "King's Crown (KC)" for the Tudor crown and "Victoria's Crown (QVC)" or "Queen's Crown (QC)" for various depiction of St Edward's crowns depending on the period of the badge. But it is the usage of QVC, KC, QC that is the creative and unofficial shorthand, one which is based on the coincidence that Edward VII, George V, and George VI used the Tudor Crown, while Victoria and Elizabeth II used St Edwards patterns. The underlying assertion that they are related to the gender of the monarch is an error long overlooked by the ease of use.

All too often I have heard the assertion that when Charles takes the throne, then automatically all badge designs with crowns will have to change (leaving the inference that a return to the "King's crown" will naturally result. But who among us can say with certainty what Charles' cypher will look like, and what crown design he will approve? There is no published rule to my knowledge that says he must change, or must use the Tudor crown, or cannot continue to use a St Edward's crown design. The overuse of KC/QC has led to assumptions that are not supportable.

[Toby Purcell]

I suppose we are getting deep into semantics here. Perhaps it depends on which dictionary one uses. The meaning mine shows is that monarchial means grand, splendid, magnificent, whereas monarchical means of or relating specifically to a royal crown head. Hence I thought the first to be out of context in the sense that seemed to have been intended by the NAM.

[jf42]

Originally Posted by Frank Kelley

Yes, I think it is, certainly grammatically correct, a direct reference to the sovereigns crown, it is important to bare in mind that a great many people who visit the NAM do not collect badges and have little interest in them, if any whatsoever.

Indeed. I can see how the word is an appropriate derivative of the word 'monarch,' my question related more to the choice of what seems a rather cumbersome word, of which I for one was previously unaware, but, indeed, you would have to be deliberately looking for that Black Watch entry at nam.ac, and some determination, in the catalogue area of what is, it must be said, not the most user-friendly of websites.

[jf42]

Originally Posted by Toby Purcell

I suppose we are getting deep into semantics here. Perhaps it depends on which dictionary one uses. The meaning mine shows is that monarchial means grand, splendid, magnificent, whereas monarchical means of or relating specifically to a royal crown head. Hence I thought the first to be out of context in the sense that seemed to have been intended by the NAM.

Well, yes indeed. There seems to be a range of opinions as to the meanings we can attach to what is not a very common word. Webster show 'monarchial' and 'monarchal' to be synonyms relating to a monarch, king or sovereign, while 'royal' indicates "relating to, or subject to the crown" which seems perhaps a slightly broader reference, but not that different.

Anyway, next time I come across 'monarchial,' I shall nod sagely and walk by on the other side of the road.