Flowers are excellent, but I have fiendish plans that require all three item spots…

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  (Genesis 1:11)

I’d fully vote for it if
1) I could hold four items, and
2) I could give other Monks flowers so they can share in the beauty of the plants in this monastery.

What’s a “bouquet” defined as?

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. (Genesis 11:7)

Or else what?

Thelonious is right, too.  When a Monk “must” do something, it’s generally better if the Rule specifies the consequences for not doing the thing.  The default consequence is that the action that triggered the “must do something” is illegal if the Monk doesn’t do the required thing.  In this case, I suppose that it would be illegal to be the Herbalist if you weren’t carrying the bouquet.

I beleive that upon becoming herbalist, e would gain a bouquet and be unable to give it away.

For certain sneaky reasons, I don’t want to compel anyone to carry Items indefinitely, although we have not defined bouquets yet.

Now if you wanted to request that e get you a bouquet of flowers, that might work instead, as long as e could refuse—perhaps with some consequence?

Interesting concept which could possibly benefit you/me, but like latter comments I find the change to be naive, and a little too… weak.

Strongly enjoy Elias IX’s 2nd condition, though I may not see any real purpose!

I am a little concerned about the poorly defined nature of “bouquet”.