Yeoh’s explanation differs from others who also chose “perfect shield”.
His explanation incorporates “bearing” while the others ignore the word totally.

So, shield is something that bears a coat of arms.However, that is not universal.Even taken as a valid approach, “coat of arms” is not the same thing as “arms of a kind”.

My main reason for not accepting “perfect shield” as an alternative is that “bearing” has been ignored.
Hope that satisfies your argument, Yeoh.

Regards, Jaymen.

Nothing Wrong = Perfect
Shield (as those held by knights) bears a coat of arms – ‘arms of a kind’

No argument from me on their inclusion. Some modern writers and their works have also come into the field. These may have connections to Booker Prizes and so forth and so can be argued to be “famous”. As long as no “obscure” works are brought in ,this tradition should continue as they make us aware of great works of literature.

In solving The Times crossword which we get syndicated in our local “Straits Times” I have almost never come across a work or author mentioned that was beyond the pale. On the other hand I constantly come across geographical references that are too “obscure” for my tastes!

Scottish , Welsh and Irish sites are mentioned very often and I mentally sigh whenever I see them. Inevitably I have to solve the interconnecting clues first before I narrow down the geographical site clue.

Now, far be it for me to criticize this range of references. After all The Times crossword is UK based and has the tradition of using such clues. The setters probably expect the solvers ( mostly UK based) to know the geography of their sceptred isle . And gradually, I have gotten used to its presence in some clues.

But the “deep science and mathematics” which I love is hardly given its rightful place at the table! How much more universal are they, even when placed next to English Literature which I love equally! The literate world should marvel at Boyle’s Law and be aware of the exclamation sign in factorials.

More than just invoking famous scientists and mathematicians
( equivalent of literary references in The Times crosswords), I endeavour to give hints of scientific laws and mathematical structures. I personally feel that these universal insights should not remain obscure and should be in the consciousness of every literate soul.

However, intention of purpose is not sufficient to judge elegance of execution. Any such clue should be judged on its internal merits and aesthetic sense. Feel free to criticize the clues individually but it’s not quite fair to say that they belong to the “obscure” category.

I am reminded of an incident after I had clued one of the most famous series/transforms in mathematics—The Fourier Transform in a local treasure hunt. A dear friend sent me a cutting of a Times Crossword Competition Rules where the writer had humorously mentioned that Fourier Transforms and Riemann Functions would NOT be part of the answers!(I am quoting from memory)

Well, its about time that we invoke these Universal Insights in a way that with time and effort will show cryptic enthusiasts the wonders of the scientific world!
Rgds, Jaymen.

So, I’m sure those who solved the question did take a step back and figure out that they are not be bartered. Leaving them be, the solver would see that L ( of Lisa) and O & E ( of Homer) need to come into the picture. With a limited number of answers , moth orchid would be a good choice –then Marge and Maggie would fit in logically.
People did manage to solve this question.

Quite frankly , I cant remember at what point in setting the question that I dragged the Simpsons into it. But, once i did, they brought a smile to my face as they usually do!Though they are immortal and dont need more recognition, i’m happy to pay a homage to all of them cryptically!
Rgds, Jaymen.