File talk:SLN officers.jpg

Old discussion

(moved from Image talk:NAL navy officers.jpg)

Good idea to use simple objects considering the number of ethnicities in NAL, maybe you should even replace the maple leaf of the sub-lieutenant with either a diamond-less line or a single diamond.

One thing that puzzle me is the two-crowns-and-star emblem at the top which (in regard to IB) makes me think immediatly of the Republic of the Two Crowns (don't know if you were aware of it). What does it represent ?

I notice they look thin and long and do not have buttons, were you imagining them like "back to front" shoulder bands use by the US *here* ?

As for the sleeve insignias you mention, are they for non-officers or are they "secondary" rank marking like the cuff bands use *here* ? nevermind, I just saw the other image. --Marc Pasquin 10:50, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I assumed for the purposes of my design that the maple leaf came to be regarded as more purely 'American' emblem, hence its prevalance in the insignia I designed. The two-crowns-and-star is a reference to the monarchs of the FK and Kemr, who are technically the heads of state of the NAL, with the star referencing the Northern Star and the NAL flag. I thought it likely a military organization, especially is a multi-cultural milieu, would hang on to certain traditions with a death grip. The boards are in essence sewn on to the uniforms rather than held on by buttons. The two-crowns-and-star would be towards the wearer's neck. Zahir 11:06, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

The only problem I would see with the 2 crowns thing then would be the fact that some of the province (like new sweden) recognise other monarchs then the cambrian or anglo-scotish ones so to limit it to only 2 might no suit them. using only one could be seen as representing "the monarch" as a concept instead of a particular person. --Marc Pasquin 11:19, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I see your point but that seems to me to fall into the category of "No one is ever happy with everything." Plenty of Americans *here* dislike having In God We Trust on our money, while others continue to be furious the government won't rule Christianity the more-or-less official faith of the country. Lots of Southern States continue to fly the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, despite plenty of complaints all the time. I'm told there's been agitation for Welsh independence *here* as well as calls for an end to the monarchy, etc. Legally--as I understand it--the NAL has two official heads of state and always has, i.e. the monarchs of Kemr and the FK. That would be of great symbolic value to a military, and they would fight like mad not to change something like that. JMHO. Zahir 11:31, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

On the other hand, if the tradition predates the entry of the Scandinavian colony of New Sweden, then it would be tough cheese for them, as they weren't in on the original design. [PB]

Actualy there is technicaly only one head of state ("the sovereign") but not everyone consider him/her to be the same person. Quoting from our page on the NAL-SLC:

"In the Solemn League and Covenant (the document), there is a famous "saving clause" where, after declaring that the "supposed Colonies are, and ought of right ought to be, Free and mutually Dependent States", it continues "saving always the Faith and Allegiance owed to our Sovereign". The use of the singular "Sovereign" represents a concession to the "Fifth Monarchy Men", who insisted that they recognized no sovereign but God. (The first four monarchies were Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, and the fifth was to be the direct reign of God himself, which they expected any time now.) The Hodenoshoni thought the issue was silly, but went along.

Consequently, the NAL courts have always held that sovereign honors may be paid to any of the English, Scottish, Kemrese, or Scandinavian monarchs, depending on the circumstances. Technically, this makes the NAL a sort of condominium, while keeping it independent in fact."

--Marc Pasquin 11:46, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Okay, I see your point. But I still like the double crown and star because it just looks so cool. And it certainly seems justifiable in the context of the history I've seen in IB. Certainly *here* plenty of symbols are duplicated, including the Double-Headed Eagle and the Fleur-de-lis. Is this a really strong objection or just one flown up the flagpole to see how it fares? Zahir 12:09, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Sorry, I don't understand that last question.--Marc Pasquin 12:02, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

"Sending something up the flagpole and seeing who salutes" is an Americanism -- it's a call for general concensus on a proposed idea. If no one "salutes", or votes in favour, then the proposal is considered rejected. And to continue the metaphor, the "flag" is then brought down and retired. [PB]

I suppose I'm asking just how strong is your objection to the two-crowns-and-star emblem?

--Zahir 12:09, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Not particularly strong. Since you seem to like the design, you could simply explain it differently, "the 2 crowns symbolise.... ":

- ".... the sovereignty of both the league and of its covenant enforced by its navy."

- ".... the union of amerindians and european under a shared goal."

- "..... that the navy is at the service of both the states and the league as a whole."

--Marc Pasquin 12:18, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Or all of the above. Thanks, then! --Zahir 12:22, 24 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Being responsible for the Scandinavian part of the NAL, I'd have to agree with Marc that the use of only two crowns might be a tad too contentious — keep in mind that the Scandinavians are masters of Jante's Law. The Scandinavians would have quite a lot of influenced on the NAL navy — the SR Navy is a fairly powerful navy. I say that you either stick with one crown to represent all monarchs, or have as many crowns as there are monarchs. I prefer the former. Boreanesia 23:06, 25 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Here are some possibilities. File:Possibles.jpg

I look forward to reading some opinions... Zahir 07:48, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)

My favorite ones are the bottom-right one, bottom-left, as well as the crown surrounded by three stars. The two versions with just one crown and one star (each) is also doable, though not as cool-looking. The two versions with three crowns would make the Swedes happy, since they're reminiscent of the Swedish coat of arms, but they might be a bit contentious towards the other monarchies. My least favorite is the top-left, for reasons I have already mentioned. Boreanesia 10:04, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Cool. What does anyone else think? My own fave would probably be the single crown with three stars (for one thing it is open to so many different interpretations). Zahir 10:08, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I concur -- I like the bottom right one (small crown on a star) better than the others. Three crowns around the star I could also go for. [PB]

My vote would go for the one at the lower left. Bicoloured symbol llok to me more classy.--Marc Pasquin 19:28, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)

---

RE: one two or three crowns -- when were these designs supposed to have been created? If they were decided upon in the 1803-1823 period, then the New Swedes, Jante's Law notwithstanding, would simply be entering into an already established naval tradition, i.e., the American which would have had only two monarchs. If the designs came later, then I'd agree that the New Swedes and their naval traditions would have had some impact.

I like the use of the maple leaf for a symbol -- there's always been an in-joke that the NAL is really a "Greater Canada", so that fits nicely. [PB]

You see, I really like the maple leaf as well. But of course I'll bow to the majority. My thought about the two-crowns-and-star is that such was the original emblem from the first few years of the League, and everyone pretty much had to accept it who came along later. On the other hand, perhaps it was altered over time. I'm increasingly leaning towards the crown and three stars, myself. Zahir 13:13, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Delete?

Are you sure you want to delete this, David? As far as I know, this is the only version of the image! --IJzeren Jan 07:02, 22 November 2005 (PST)

It is obsolete. The shoulder boards of the SLN are not this design, and the current ones are already uploaded. So this one is just taking up space. Zahir 07:55, 22 November 2005 (PST)

Ah, found them. Okay, I've deleted it. Shall I delete this talk page, too, or would you like me to move it to Image talk:SLN officers.jpg first? --IJzeren Jan 12:27, 22 November 2005 (PST)

Couldn't hurt to move it, I suppose. 69.224.169.57 12:43, 22 November 2005 (PST)