Talk:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Horse in the Hanoverian coat of arms

The Horse Argent in Gules (heraldic for the white horse in red comes not from the dukedom of Westphalia, but is the old symbol of Old Saxony (now: Lower Saxony) which was divided into East and Westphalia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.109.119 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Precedence: France v. England

Could it be that France takes precedence over England in the quartering because France is a more ancient kingdom that England? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it was more a case of the English monarch wanting to emphasise his claim to France as much (and as much to the annoyance of the French) as possible.

New version of the arms

Please help me. I've seen new version Great Britain coat of arms. Is this version official? Darius-poland-viki 19:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you mean by "official". I don't know if the Wikipedia image is an exact copy of the design used by Buckingham Palace, but the image here is a correct rendering of the arms; however, any other drawing with the same arrangement of design elements and colours is also correct. However, it should be noted that the Government of the U.K. generally uses a version without the helmet and mantling, with the crest resting on the top of the shield. The version with the helmet seems to be reserved for use by the Queen herself.--Indefatigable 19:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One black & white version used on used by the government on acts of parliament doesn't seem to have a mound various printed items, another version is more artistic, so the supporters feet are lower,but of course its not the picture that matters but the description. Have you seen blazon under heraldry?
In The Government's version the crown rests directly on the shield. The version with the helmet crest and mantling is used only by the Queen herself - the only woman in the UK allowed by the laws of heraldry to display such items

garryq 10:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) garryq 07:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Versions since Victoria

The Tower of London has a room with all the Coats of Arms of UK monarchs. In Victoria's the supporters are "lying down" (don't know the proper heraldic term), while QEII has them "standing up". Should this be mentioned? Astrotrain 20:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

King of Ireland

Ireland (which had been ruled by the Sovereign of England since 1541).
Surly the Sovereign of England had ruled Ireland for may years before 1541 but as Lord of Ireland instead of King of Ireland. The change being made to emphasise the Henry VIII was second to none in Ireland. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This depends how loosely one interprets "ruled". As stated in the first of the the above, "nominally all-island Irish state" is an apt description; the de facto situation doesn't change for some time after 1541, either. But yes, it should be made clearer that this is a change in title, rather than a change in "facts on the ground". Alai 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Joint Reigns

Where are Mary and Philip's arms, or Mary and William's arms--both impaled side-by-side? IP Address 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)jwh

Crest in Northern Ireland

Does anyone have an image of the crest used in Northern Irland?--Hun2 12:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the Royal Crest of Ireland (on a torse Azure and Or, a castle triple-towered of the second, from the portal thereof a hart springing Argent attired and hooved Or) has never been used in Northern Ireland. Instead the same arms with the same Royal Crest as used in England and Wales is used in Northern Ireland as the Royal Arms.
But, I may be wrong.
--Bill Du Talk 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I read that. But that may also be wrong.--Hun2 09:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

language

I'm not happy with Sakhuluv's recent changes in language, but hesitate to undo them wholesale. —Tamfang 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The title

The article starts with 'The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.....' in capitals presumably because starts by describing the principal version. Normally subject of the first sentence matches the title of the article. However the article is called 'Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom'. This seems inconsistent and my first thought was to add more capital letters. However there is another royal coat of arms for the Scots. Perhaps the article should be called 'Royal coats of arms of the United Kingdom', pluralised like courts-martial. JMcC 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png

Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for this article's usage to the image's description page. Others are welcome to improve upon it. —Adavidb 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Royal" coat of arms

I took the initiative of moving this page to "Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom", dropping the initial royal. My reasoning is thus: every other country that has a coat of arms page in the Wikipedia is called "Coat of arms of _____", including other Commonwealth nations. (Canada, Australia, etc.). Furthermore, since there is no need to disambiguate between the "Coat of arms of the United Kingdom" and the "Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom", then I suggest we keep the title as concise as possible. After all, if we really wanted to spell out the full title, it should read "The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This is why I moved the page. Thanks, and happy editing. Lovelac7 13:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the move because it's redundant. It's called a "United Kingdom", so the coat of arms is royal as a matter of course. For any article, if we can have a shorter title that means exactly the same thing, I'm all for it. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This page has been moved to Coat of arms of the United Kingdom as the result of a move proposal listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh. How long did that last? —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It lasted until the following February until someone decided by himself that he didn't like it and reverted the change. I attempted to unrevert but it didn't work, possibly because "Coat of arms of the United Kingdom" is now a redirect page? I don't know how to delete that and sort out the mess. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.9.167 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms Scot Exec.jpg

Image:Arms Scot Exec.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No Welsh Quarter?

I am curious to know why instead of a Welsh quarter on the shield, there are two English quarters. Could somebody either enlighten me or point me in the direction of another page which holds the information I seek? --Thexeber (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read the rest of the article. Oops, I should have read the article more thoroughly. --Thexeber (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's fine — you wouldn't believe the number of times I was asked the same thing when I worked at Buckingham Palace! DBD 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So for Wales to get on the coat of arms, it has to break away from the UK, set up its own kingship, and then rejoin the UK? That's silly and too much work, just add them to the shield, England doesn't need two sections. --130.15.164.98 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If the Queen strips Charles of his "Prince of Wales" title and invests it in herself, the Welsh arms could be added. Astrotrain (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The arms of Wales are represented on the arms of Charles, Prince of Wales. That is the appropriate place for them. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Queen could give herself a quarter to represent wales, she could also give herself a quarter to represent the moon. It is all based on tradition. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Arms of Francis

King consort was chalk and cheese in that period to how it is in modern times. His standing was equal to, if not greater than, the Queen herself - these were chauvinistic times you must remember. (Particularly if the King consort was an heir to a throne or indeed already a King in his own right). One of the reasons Elizabeth I of England never married was because of this exact situation - she did not want to play second-fiddle to a man! The only reason Francis doesn't figure greatly in Scots history was that he only lived as King consort of Scots for two years, otherwise the issue over the inclusion of his arms would not require discussion. Rab-k (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the issue of English monarchs and Kings consort, the only equivalent to Francis which I can see in the table is Philip of Spain, (King consort of Mary I of England), whose arms do not appear in the table. Philip was King consort of England for two years prior to becoming King of Spain, much in the way Francis was King consort of Scots for one year prior to becoming King of France, however, I can find no example of Philip's arms prior to his becoming King of Spain which include an English element. For that reason I will remove the Franco-Scots arms of Francis for the sake of balance. I have however included the three Franco-Scots styles of Mary's arms, given that the table displays styles of arms rather than simply a list of monarchs I trust this to be in order.Rab-k (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative quartering

I know that various organs of government use variations of the arms. As I understand it, these differ in what elements surround the shield, but leave the quartering intact. I also realize that now as at times in the past, the quartering has depended on whether or not the royal arms are used in respect of Scotland.

I was watching the John Adams miniseries on HBO, and the royal arms on the wall behind the judge during the Boston Massacre trial caught my eye. It was clearly meant to be a post-Union representation because the supporters were the lion and the unicorn. It was the royal arms because the garter encircled the shield and a crown topped the shield. However, the quartering seemed wrong. The second quarter was clearly the three fleurs-de-lis of France, and the third quarter was clearly the Irish harp. The first and fourth were harder to make out. Given the other elements, the 1st and 4th quarters should be the English arms impaled with the Scots arms or those impaled arms in the first and the Hanoverian arms in the fourth. At first it appeared to me that both quarters in the TV version were the three lions of England alone. When watching the 1st episode recap at HBO.com, it appeared that the fourth quarter might be the Scottish lion. Then again, it might have been a glare, it's just hard to tell.

Assuming I saw the arms right on the internet, would there have been a variation of the arms in which the English arms were in the 1st quarter and the Scottish arms in the fourth? If so, that should be mentioned. Also, can anyone with HBO and an HDTV confirm what I saw? Rrius (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever seen such a version. Could be the guy in the 'props' section just threw something together as best he could, without too much attention to detail? Or perhaps a copyright issue resulted in the use of a fictional design? Rab-k (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Anachronisms in the royal arms are easy to spot. That's not as bad as one movie I saw recently where the doors of a British courtroom were decorated with the shield of Norway! —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I also saw in another series in a court room depicting arms in the same era. The arms of England impaled with the arms of Scotland with the Hanoverian arms in the 4th quarter. This version is shown in this article. it was used 1714-1801. The reason you think england is in the 4th quarter is the brunswick portion of the Hanover arms is England sans one lion. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

use of the Royal Arms and Royal motto in courts

This is my 1st Article about; Wikipedia articles on: The use of the Royal Arms and Royal motto in courts. In all courts throughout England and Wales, all Judges and Magistrates sit beneath the Royal Coat of Arms with the motto; “DIEU ET MON DROIT - GOD AND MY RIGHT” In the Queens Coronation oath, she makes her solemn oath in the sight of all the people by “laying her right hand upon the Bible saying: So help me God.” This oath is in accordance with Magna Carta Statutes: “John, by the grace of God King of England,” “Know that before God.” [61] “We give public and free permission to take the oath …we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.” This oath is compelled to be sworn by jurors, witnesses and the accused, in all law courts. The Court Usher compels the subject to place their left hand upon the Bible [representing God] and to raise their right hand. They then state the oath; “I swear by almighty God.....” Accordingly I/we all swear on oath by “God (h)and my right” - before and using - "God and my right". The Court’s use of DIEU - GOD, is not to British Monarchs, as this originates from the pledge of allegiance to English Kings/Queens; “In the name of God, King and Country.” Pledges of allegiance to all Germanic British Kings/Queens since the 1701 Act of Union, replaced this pledge with; “In the name of the King/Queen, his/her heirs and successors.” Stephen2nd (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Any comments ? [References]: [Coquetdale Magistrates Court]: Road Traffic Act: GH/GH/0033022. 3/01 to 21/09/1995. Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: John Stevens v. Stephen Mowbray McDermott. G Hogg [re Lord Chancellor]: Royal Arms displayed in all courts in England and Wales. [NB: not in all courts throughout the country]Stephen2nd (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[Wikepedia]: Royal Coat of Arms: Motto: Magna Carta: Coronation and Judicial Oaths.Stephen2nd (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a small lion or a bear sitting on top of the crown on the scottish emblem?

Also, why is it holding a sword in one hand and a spoon in the other? (78.149.8.182 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

The answers to your questions are in the article Royal coat of arms of Scotland, third paragraph. Indefatigable (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
For a slightly more detailed (but not free image) see here: http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/UNKG1029.GIF . Also, for an example of the motto In Defens, in full, see here: http://www.dorothydunnett.co.uk/2006AGM/mqos-arms-600.jpg . See also Honours of Scotland. 80.41.213.40 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

William and Mary

The arms used by William and Mary were William's (the Royal Arms with an escutcheon of Nassau) impaling Mary's (the Royal Arms undifferenced), as would be usual for a husband and wife who are King and Queen-Regnant (compare Philip and Mary). See here for a depiction (although that site does wrongly render the full achievement with an heraldic tent as well, which is not used in British heraldry; the only mantles used are those of peers). Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated this change into the section on historical arms. However a new image for 1689-1694 is needed, as Image:UK Arms 1689.svg should be named Image:UK Arms 1694. I'll ask around to see if anyone can help on this. Opera hat (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Detail (in English) here (image). Endrick Shellycoat 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
...as cited by me in the changes I made on 20 Oct. Opera hat (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Home Office use of Shield and Motto

Looks like the Home Office have recently dropped the crown, shield and motto from their logo (currently shown as a ribbon and simply the words Home Office on the web site). Anyone got any information when this change took place? Is it now the official logo of the Home Office, without the shields/crown/motto 12.14.150.65 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section

We have all the Coats of Arms of the United Kingdom (full versions, including their supporters and adornments, not just the shields) all the way back to King Henry th 8th now uploaded to the Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historic_coats_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom. I have already replaced the current Arms as well as it's Government versions, but don't have time to do a history. Would someone be willing to alter the History Section of this page to show all the Historical Arms of the UK? I have them sorted by usage date in the category on the Commons they're in, for ease. Fry1989 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when did the "United Kingdom" date "all the way back to King Henry th 8th"??? Such pre-1707 examples should in fact be categorised as "Coats of Arms of the Kingdom of England". Before anyone alters anything perhaps the category within which they are placed should be altered accordingly. No wonder so many people get confused between England/Great Britain/United Kingdom when the likes of Wikipedia can't even get the terminology correct!217.43.63.247 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you check the Royal Arms + supporters from Henry VIII to James I, in Royal Supporters of England, there are several attributed versions of the Royal Arms missing from Commons. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I plan to finish most if not all of them in the future (the supporters that is), but it will take quite long, I also plan to do all the royal standards, so hold your horses for now. Sodacan (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

arms of (first) union

In 1707–1800, shouldn't the tressure be dimidiated? —Tamfang (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are examples of both from the period, furthermore it is not a dimidiation but impalement (as in the blazon, as sourced in the article). Sodacan (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No need to remind me that impalement ≠ dimidiation. Bordures, orles and tressures in impaled arms were usually dimidiated; yes I know there are counterexamples. If there are period examples of both whole and dimidiated tressures in the royal arms, okay, good enough; I didn't know that. —Tamfang (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Different marshalling in Scotland?

I know that nowadays in Scotland the Royal arms have the lion rampant in the first quarter. But for how long has this been going on? It appears that the notion of differently marshalled achievements in England and Scotland has been extended backwards as far as the Union without any direct evidence to support this. I'm particularly sceptical about the period 1707-1801 when England/Scotland were impaled; it seems highly unlikely to me that the Hanoverian monarchs would have authorised arms with Scotland taking precedence even in "North Britain". Opera hat (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I have not found any pictorial evidence for the 1707-1801 period (which is a shame), there is evidence that this has been going on for sometime, definitely since the Union of the Crowns (Photo of woodcarving) (and another). All I have is an example of the 1801-1816 version of the Royal Arms in Scotland: Photograph of St Michael's Kirk & another somewhere in Glasgow. This maybe small, but an evidence none the less that the Hanoverians might not felt so iffy about Scotland after all. Especially since this specimen is of the version that came before George IV's special trip. Sodacan (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Scotland and England have and always separate heraldic authorities, so monarchs would have to specifically order the arms to be the same, for them not to be, and prior to George IV the Kings never went to Scotland, so the might have never known. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no crown for Heir Apparent/Prince of Wales

There is at least one reference on this page to a "crown" for the Heir Apparent or the Prince of Wales. It's not a crown. It's a coronet. The link to the article about this headgear still says "crown" although the article has been corrected to "coronet".

The difference between a coronet and a crown isn't design, it's sovereignty. If headgear lacks arches but is the headgear of a monarch, it's a crown. (As were many archless crowns on early royal English seals.) Headgear that has arches but is not the headgear of a monarch, but an honor bestowed by a monarch, is a coronet. Arches have nothing to do with it.

It's right here: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/ QUOTE: This shield is surmounted by the coronet of the Heir Apparent. In heraldry this is depicted in the same way as the crown of the Sovereign except that it has one arch instead of two. UNQUOTE

It's a coronet. If you're going to say that adding arches to a coronet turns it into a crown please cite a source that has some chance of knowing what they're talking about; someone who works for the Royal Family or for the Duke of Norfolk or the College of Arms; or someone who has researched a book. Someone with some concrete measure of CREDIBILITY. I've seen MANY writings that any arched headgear of a non-monarch is a crown, but there has never been any REASON to believe any of those writings might be correct instead of the mere half-baked uninformed snap judgment of the writer. Yes, coronets with arches DO LOOK different, a different class of headgear entirely, a different visual impact, than coronets without arches. The evidence of the senses of any reasonable person who doesn't know any better would be that this -- what they LOOK like -- is the basis of distinction between "crown" and "coronet". That's an innocent conclusion, and reasonable, but it turns out that, in this case, when you check the FACTS, such conclusion, though innocent and reasonable, is wrong. 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.131.64 (talk)

Changes to royal succession rules, 2011

With the new rules of succession agreed this year (giving daughters and sons equal precedence), does this mean that the statement "Only children and grandchildren in the male line of the monarch are entitled to receive their own arms in this fashion" needs to be updated somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streapadair (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess: Not without an express change to the law. Anyway, the succession change has been agreed in principle by the Commonwealth Governments but not yet enacted by their Parliaments, so far as I know. —Tamfang (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Variation used in NSW, Australia

The Courts in NSW still sit under the Royal coat of arms. I thought those who are so interested might be interested in the variation found on this page, http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/history_nation/justice/establish.html the 4th image down, where the animals are hiding behind the middle graphic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.164.172 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

motto: how literal?

Honi soit qui mal y pense (shame be upon him who thinks evil of it)

The word ‘be’ was added to the translation by Kelisi (talk · contribs), saying, "There is a verb in the subjunctive in the original French; it should be translated." But this is no improvement; the subject of soit is not ‘shame’ (a noun not appearing in the French) but qui. ‘Shame upon’, without explicit ‘be’, is idiomatic and a fair translation of the sense. I'll revert. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Scotland's Lion Statant Guardant?

According to the article, as it now reads, the lion in Scotland's quarter is "statant guardant." I am no expert on heraldry, but I know a bit. I believe that Scotland's lion is rampant, not statant. And his head would have to be facing the viewer to be guardant. Am I wrong? If I am, then the Wikipedia article on "Lion (heraldry)" needs to be changed.--PGNormand (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see that? I can't find the word statant other than in the blazon of the English crest. —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sottish version of the coat of arms may be redundant

www.royal.gov.uk states here that "From the times of the Stuart kings, the Scottish quarterings have been used for official purposes in Scotland". This, along with the entire source's wording, suggests that the Scottish coat of arms and motto are no longer officially used, with the more common, so called "English version" being exclusive, and not "English". I recently removed the Scottish version of the coat of arms and motto from United Kingdom's info-box as per WP:NOR, and this contradicting source. Some sources, that would not be regarded satisfactory for Wikipedia, state that the Scottish version of the coat of arms and motto are still in use, however these obviously wouldn't justify their inclusion. I haven't done significant research into the Scottish version, so there may be valid sources that support its current official use. Also, my interpretation of the source from www.royal.gov.uk may be debatable, as it isn't entirely clear on the situation. I would appreciate others thoughts on this, considering its controversial nature. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This image, of the Hanoverians British coat of arms in Scotland, shows the Scottish configuration on the shield, and with the Unicorn on the left, however the English/standard version motto and crown. Also worth noting is that the English/standard version of the coat of arms often includes English, Irish and Scottish symbols around the motto, at the bottom, whereas the Scottish version currently presented on this article only shows Scottish symbols. Rob (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the cited source to imply that the Scottish version is no longer "used for official purposes in Scotland". —Tamfang (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It states "have been used officially" rather then "is used officially", which suggests it may no longer be used, and that the English/standard version is not exempted from Scotland as is currently implied here. I'm also not convinced the Scottish version is a complete alternative design, based off the Kingdom of Scotland's coat of arms, but rather more similar to the English/standard version, just with Scotland's symbols taking precedence of the English ones, as is shown in the image I linked above. I think more sources need to be analysed however, specifically photos of the Scottish arms, as I haven't seen any that resemble the graphic currently shown. Rob (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you say "have been" if you mean "and are no longer"? I wouldn't; though I might mean sporadic usage (that has not been definitely ended). Would you say "From the times ... are used"? I wouldn't. On the contrary, if such usage had ended I'd expect "were used" in that sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Coronet of a son of the sovereign Proper?

The Arms of Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Prince William, all depict "Upon a coronet of a son of the sovereign Proper, the royal helm Or", according to Pinces, J.H. & R.V., in "The Royal Heraldry of England", (1974).

Prince Philip and Prince William are not a son of the sovereign Proper, how or why are they entitled to such depictions, and as such, why not Prince Andrew and Prince Harry & etc? Stephen2nd (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Stephen2nd: not answering your question, but "Proper" describes the coronet, not the son or the sovereign. jnestorius(talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Scotland section needs some minor expansion, and inline citations. Blood red sandman 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Differenced versions in Scotland

Do the other members of the Royal family likewise flip their supporters and quartering around when in Scotland? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Duchess of Gloucester's coat of arms

I think a source for the Duchess of Gloucester's coat of arms would be good, especially since I very much doubt that the statement marshalled with those of her Danish father, Asger Preben Henriksen is true. If the arms were granted to her father that would make his older daughter (the Duchess's sister) the heraldic heiress. Thus, it wouldn't make sense for the Duchess to use the arms on an escutcheon of pretence. Also, if these arms were granted by the College of Arms, it seems unlikely that they would grant arms to a Asger Preben Henriksen who is a Danish citizen. Another reason to doubt that these arms belonged to her father is that the main charge on the shield is a lapwing (the bird), which is a symbol that appears in the heraldry of van Deurs, her mother's family (http://www.skeel.info/showmedia.php?mediaID=5827). And lastly, the duchess doesn't really have anything to do with her father and didn't even use his family name before she married. Instead, what I think has happened is that the arms were granted directly to the Duchess before she married, which would explain why she is a heraldic heiress, since the arms would be directly owned by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.171.164 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Duchess of Gloucester Freedom of the City of London Sodacan (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This image shows her coat of arms and shows that she is indeed a heraldic heiress, but a source is still needed to show that her arms come from her father. I think it is unlikely that they come from her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.171.164 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Arms of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Scotland again

Reopening discussion from #Different marshalling in Scotland?, contradicted by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, The book of public arms (1915) pp.712–4 (emphasis added):

The Act of Union provided that the Arms of the United Kingdom should be declared by Her Majesty, and one version for the United Kingdom was called into being. No warrant for any special version of the Royal Arms for use in Scotland has ever been issued, but for the purposes of the Great Seal of Scotland a special design was submitted to King Edward VII., who approved the same by Order in Council, 11th August 1903. The seal is illustrated and described in the Report of the Deputy-Master of the Mint for 1904, and annexed to the illustration is the following description of "The Royal Arms of Scotland," viz.:— Arms — Quarterly, First and Fourth, or, a lion rampant within a double tressure flory, counterflory gules; Second, gules, three lions passant guardant in pale or; Third, azure, a harp or, stringed argent. The shield is surrounded by the collar of the Order of the Thistle with the St Andrew pendant therefrom. Crest — On the Royal Crown proper, a lion sejant affrontée gules, holding in his dexter paw a sword and in his sinister a sceptre erect, also proper. Supporters — Dexter, a unicorn argent, armed, crined and unguled or, gorged with a coronet composed of crosses pattée and fleurs-de-lis, a chain affixed thereto, reflexed over the back and fastened to a staple below, of the last, and holding erect a lance ensigned with the flag of Scotland, azure, a saltire argent. Sinister, a lion guardant or, crowned with the Royal crown proper, holding erect a lance ensigned with the flag of England argent, a cross gules. Motto — Over the crest, "In defens." [The seal itself shows the unicorn crowned with a similar crown to the lion, which fact is omitted in the description.] A similar design appears upon the Great Seal of Scotland of King George V. This order in Council is in Scotland held to authorise this version of the Royal Arms for general use in that country, but it really has no such legal effect. If either king had intended or desired such a result, the intention would have been declared by a proper Warrant issued in a proper way. Arms for the United Kingdom are one thing, arms for that part of it called Scotland are another, but the foregoing design is neither.

Possibilities:

  1. Fox-Davies was Just Plain Wrong
  2. Fox-Davies was right but incomplete in that
    1. the pre-1903 Great Seal of Scotland had the same quartering as 1903
    2. OR a "proper Warrant" was issued after 1915
    3. OR both #1 and #2
  3. Fox-Davies is still fully correct that use of the scottish quartering outside the Great Seal of Scotland is, strictly speaking, unauthorised.

jnestorius(talk) 14:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Mary of Scots quartering England

The description of Mary's bearings includes the unreferenced statement that she for a short time quartered England to represent her claim there. I'm thinking that if this can be solidly sourced, an image of it should be included. However short the time, it represents royal arms, and even if it adds little it would help offset the imbalance of the two columns. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As a followup, I have found WP:RS (as it is usually defined) attributing three additional arms to Mary, Queen of Scots:
  • before marriage, Scotland quartering England (described but not illustrated [1])
  • after marriage, France-Dauphin quartered with Scotland, over all an escutcheon of England [2]
  • in widowhood, France-Dauphin quartering Scotland with an escutchon of England dimidiating a full representation of quarterly Scotland-England [3]
All three seem dubious (but one appears to have been authentic, if misdated). 1. Before marriage: It was only on the death of Mary I (viewed by legitimits as sole non-bastard child of Henry VIII) that Mary of Scots' claim arose. She died after the French marriage, and as such there would be no time that Mary would have claimed English arms without incorporating her marriage to Francis into the display. Mary's 1553 coin, representing the 'before marriage' period, uses only the arms of Scotland. 2. After marriage: I am unaware of any indication that for the period of time between the marriage and the succession of dauphin Francis, that Mary's arms had Scotland quartered with France-Dauphin. Rather, a coin shows France-Dauphin quartering Scotland (representing Francis) dimidiated with Scotland (representing Mary), and it seemingly would be to something like this shield that any escutcheon would be added, while later after Francis succeeded, France-Dauphin would certainly have been replaced by France-proper. 3. In widowhood: Mary would not have used France-Dauphin as widow of a French king. These arms must reflect the period after Mary I of England died in November 1558, and before Frances succeeded in July 1559. Did such arms exist, though? It seems so. British Library Cotton MS Caligula B X, f. 13r includes arms 'sent from France, 1559' that are exactly so [4]. Thus, the first and second are dubious, but the third seem to be authentic arms for Mary, dating to 1558/1559.
And this brings us back to the original claim, that Mary "also, for a short time, quartered the English arms in France, for her claim to the English throne." This is made on Mary's own page as well, and there is illustrated with France impaling quarterly Scotland and England, citing several sources, but those I am able to see just make the statement that Mary did so, not illustrating the precise form this heraldry took, and I have to wonder if the arms shown are simply someone's attempt to put the statements into visual form - a guess, rather than an actual indication of the form the arms took. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cost of Arms

Is there a coat of arms with just England and Scotland? So excluding Ireland’s quarter. 120.17.18.150 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No. The Irish quarter remains in the royal arms, originally representing all of Ireland, but for the past century representing only Northern Ireland. While heraldry is typically an esoteric pursuit, the removal of the Irish quarter from the royal arms would have real world consequences, being viewed by all sides as an overtly political act bearing on Northern Ireland's status as a member of the United Kingdom. That just isn't going to happen so long as the Union retains its current configuration. Agricolae (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1155931562"