Talk:Coat of arms of England

message: King Richard II of England's arms?  IP Address 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard II

message: Why are there ten red and white roses on the England football crest? Know body knows, do you?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  81.153.247.72 (talk • contribs) 15:07, June 24, 2006.
: The red and white rose is a royal badge for England (originally of the Tudors).  —Tamfang 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tudor rose.--Hannesde Correct me! 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about the England football badge, crest or coat of arms. 

message: "According to another tradition the two leopards were combined with the single leopard of Aquitaine on the acquisition of these continental territories by the English Crown"
This sentence is wrong, it's the Duke of Aquitaine that became King of England in 1154, the way this sentence in made suggest it is the opposite that happened, that the King of England became Duke of Aquitaine. Nothing could be further away from the truth, I'll reword this sentence. Matthieu 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can write that link as :fr:Armorial des régions de France (note the leading colon).  —Tamfang 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquitaine 

message: : The arms of England are not used in any official capacity on their own ...
I seem to remember seeing them on Channel Islands coins; can someone enlighten me about official armory used there?  —Tamfang (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the leopards alone 

message: This article says:
"The royal coat of arms of England was the official coat of arms of the monarchs of England, and were used as the official coat of arms of the Kingdom of England until the Union of the Crowns in 1603. Afterwards, the arms became an integral part of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom."
But the United Kingdom didn't exist until 01/01/1801. So what happened between 1603 and 1801? The Union of the Crowns just meant that the two crowns were now on the same head. There was still an independent Kingdom of England until 01/05/1707.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Æscing (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened between 1603 and 1801?

message: I have revamped the article, and merged material about the Royal Banner of England with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk   16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, excellent work. One question though: why have you used  in the references, it looks a bit odd. Could you not simply put "Quote: XYZ..." Thanks for your hard work, Woody (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamped

message: There probably ought to be a mention of the arms of the Cinque Ports Confederation, which are the english dimidiated with a blue shield bearing three silver ships. Surprisingly we don't seem to have an image of the Cinque Ports arms... Those of Hastings are a variation on them (supposedly the arms have an entire lion to represent the fact that the town is the chief port).
 The (pre 1974) City of Chester also dimidiated the royal arms, this time with those of the Earlds of Chester. This explicitly mentioned in the letters patent confirming the arms in 1580: 
"...the ancient arms or insignia distinguished by red and azure or blue of which the first part (which can be truly  stiled Royal) displays as splendidly as possible three dimidiated lions passant and reguardient or, but the other part, borrowed from Earls palatine themselves bears one entire garb and another dimidiated garb or..." 
To which we should add Great Yarmouth  which dimidiate the royal arms with a blue shield bearing three herrings. According to Scott-Giles the herring fisheries of Yarmouth were under the control of the Cinque Ports, so you can see where they got the idea! Lozleader (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. See no reason why we can't add the prose. Were you thinking we ought to include a gallery? If so, I wonder if User:Sodacan could remaster the various arms so that the artwork is consistent(... consistently good too!). --Jza84 |  Talk   23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er yes, 3 or 4 shields next to each other would be very effective.Lozleader (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimidiation: Cinque Ports etc. 

message: I removed the word 'English' from 'English monarchs' in the lead sentence, partly because it's redundant (coming so soon after 'England') and partly because it could be construed to mean the pre-1066 kings.
: Designed in the High Middle Ages, the Royal Arms was subject to significant alteration as the territory, politics and rule of the Kingdom of England shifted throughout the Middle Ages. However, the enduring blazon, or technical description, is "Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued Azure", ...
The only way I can make sense of these two sentences together, taken literally, is that the style of the three lions coat has varied according to political conditions.
: Since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when England and the Kingdom of Scotland entered a personal union, the Royal Arms of England has been blended with Scottish heraldry
'Scottish heraldry' means much more than the royal arms, and 'blended' implies something more fundamental than quartering.
: and incorporated into the personal arms of the British monarch—what is now the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Although officially subsumed into the heraldry of the British Royal Family in 1707, the historic Royal Arms featuring three lions continues to represent England ...
and later:
: On 1 May 1707, the Royal Arms of England was subsumed into the personal arms of the British Royal Family.
The phrases "personal arms of the British monarch" and "... of the British Royal Family" are problematic.  Maybe the Stuart version was personal arms, but that's not how it works today: the shield of the monarch is inseparable from that of the state, and there is no such thing as the arms of the Royal Family — each prince's shield is (legally) a new grant from scratch.
I removed the "Blazon" section; the blazon is (properly) in the lead paragraph, and that section added nothing.
: Although lions were used by the Norman dynasty as royal emblems ....
The word 'royal' should be disambiguated: does it mean 'emblems of royalty' (dubious if they were used before 1066) or 'emblems of the king(s)'?
: ... Henry II of the House of Plantagenet, who used the Armorial of Plantagenet (featuring a lion rampant) as his personal arms.
An armorial is more than a single coat.
I hope (hah!) that my other changes are mostly self-explanatory. —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really liked the changes and I'm very thankful for the rationale here. The only one I restored was 'monarchs' to 'English monarchs', as per WP:EGG (monarchs could link to monarchy, but is more specific now - it was a deliberate editorial). The rest are great. There are some good points raised above which show my inexperience with heraldry sorry. --Jza84 |  Talk   20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point; to satisfy WP:EGG (why "EGG"?) how about "England and its monarchs"? (My version put 'its' outside the link text.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure - that would be a better alternative I guess. Good idea. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   10:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  various changes 

message: Small point on 'supporters section;' In the Edward III of England article, the 'Trinity College image' shows 'two lions as supporters,' can you tell me if these should, or should not, be classified as being 'attributed' ? I also have two (cited) references to Ed III also having 'Two Angels' as supporters, neither reference mentioning whether they are attributed, or not? Any opinions before I edit these in? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: attributed supporters?

message: :: In all seriousness; reference: “100 flags of the World carefully corrected by several Sea Commanders”. Published 12th May 1794, by Laurie & Whittle. 53 Fleet Street, London.
::This was published under the authority of George III of the United Kingdom; Duke of Edinburgh and Lüneburg, (Hamburgh) Archtreasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire: Of the flags representing Hamburgh, two define a Castle, triple-turreted on a red field. (i) The smaller one is untitled. (ii) The larger one is titled Prince de Hamburgh. (iii) The third has two castles triple-turreted in chief and one in base on a red field. 
::(i)  :File:Johnofgaunt.jpg on his escutcheon. (ii) On his surcoat. (ii) Arms of Edinburgh (1732). (ii) Royal Arms Badge: Royal Arms of Ireland. (ii) Prince/Duke of Edinburgh. (iii) :File:Arms-newcastle-tyne.jpg; Ref: Norroy CoA (1575): “The most ancient insignia.” NB: Also the only County coat of arms in the UK displaying the “Flag of England.”
::Would you consider that by armorial representation; John of Gaunt, and the Capital City of Scotland, and the Royal Badge/Arms of Ireland, and the St Georges Cross of Newcastle, are the representations of, &/or the property of The Prince/Duke of Edinburgh – &/or of Hamburgh Germany?
::With reference the 400 “English” County Coats of Arms, twinned with Germany over the past 50 years, in which 400 (minimum) “Flags of Germany” have now been replaced; Would you agree that there are more (permanent 24/7 enamelled) flags of Germany, displayed in the United Kingdom, than there are British and English flags combined?
- Stephen2nd (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: serious to the max

message: I am starting the GA review here. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgotten about this, but there still seems to be some addition of content as well as ongoing discussion here on the talkpage, so I'm holding on until it's a bit more stable. → ROUX ₪ 22:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: The arms given William the Conqueror are mythological (as is the traditional formula of two for Normandy plus one for Aquitaine, which doesn't match the historical record), accepted in 1859 but not in modern times. Coats of arms did not come into use in Europe until about two generations later.  Henry I gave his son-in-law clothing decorated with lions, but it is unclear if this is an actual coat of arms or just an emblem.  The son-in-law, Geoffrey Plantagenet, had the first documented coat of arms in the royal family.  The next few generations are likewise problematic, the arms being known from seals (and hence tinctures unknown), or in the case of Henry II deduced, and John and Richard both changed arms. This is all from Ailes, a scholarly study, published by a university press, which has to be considered more reliable than a self-published web page by a reenactment society and more current than an 1859 work. (see Armorial of Plantagenet) Thus, the material prior to Richard I should be removed or altered.
Ailes, Adrian (1982). The Origins of The Royal Arms of England. Reading: Graduate Center for Medieval Studies, University of Reading. pp. 52–53.
Agricolae (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest arms are inaccurate 

message: : Eleanor [of Aquitaine] ... married her cousin Henry II, Duke of the Normans (both were descendants of Robert II of Normandy).
This was recently changed to 
: ... (both were descendants of Robert II of France).
According to the trees in their respective articles, their only common ancestor in four generations was Ermengarde of Anjou.  Perhaps someone will show their descents from either Robert. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  common ancestors of Eleanor and Henry 

message: In a local church Church of St James, Cameley is a representation of the three lions, believed to date from around 1200 and shown at :File:Wall painting at Cameley St James.jpg. Unfortunately it has been roated by another editor & bot, but once this is sorted out would it be worth including in this article?— Rod talk 19:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... that's VERY early. Are we sure they were intended as the royal arms? Have the colours changed over time? Well I suppose we can include the pic with a note saying they are "believed" to be a representation? Lozleader (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is based on the approximate date of the rebuilding of the church (based on the architecture), but as far as I can find out no carbon dating etc has been done to date it any more accurately. As I put in the article there is another coat of arms on the opposite post purported to show links with the Knights Templar based on Almeric de St Maur (also written as Americ, Emmeri, Aimery and Aymeric) who was master of the Knights Templar in England from 1200-1218. The assumptions include that these were done at the same time the chancel arch was built - to quote from the book I'm using "The chancel arch and nave date from around 1200". The book definitely claims them as "Royal Arms of England" which it describes as unusual for a small rural church in Somerset. The colours are likely to have changed over time - many of the murals etc in the church may have been whitewashed over for several hundred years - although I am not aware whether this happened to this coat of arms. When I photographed it (2011) it was white on a pale pinky colour - although I have no idea what colour it was 800 yrs ago.— Rod talk 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early representation 

message: This coat of arms is used in a couple articles. It is presented as the arms of Stephen I of England. Is is legit? Is it historical and not mereley an example of attributed arms? Should the arms be covered in this article? Should the image be removed from the article in which is appears?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen was well before systematic heraldry is generally considered to have begun, but that isn't to say he didn't use such an emblem. —Tamfang (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about these arms? Stephen of England 

message: The title of this article leads to a misunderstanding of the relationship between Royal Arms and the country of England. This article is about the Royal Arms of the kings and queens of England, not the Royal Arms of England. This is why the shield is so often quartered, because the English monarch also claimed to be, or was the monarch of other countries. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same, but it's referenced - well referenced. --Jza84 |  Talk   09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: When i was reading this article a question came into my mind. Why Nordmen and Englishman choose the lion to stay on their flag. I mean i understand the Germans Eagle is everywhere in europe. Americans choose also white headed eagle. How and where the Englishman in 10th century observed the lions and decided that they look like them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, heraldry as we know it seems to have developed during the 12th century.  And the lion was considered the noblest animal, the eagle the noblest bird, the oak the noblest tree, etc. -- so lots of countries have lions or eagles in their emblems.  The Holy Roman Empire adopted eagle symbolism influenced by the Byzantine or earlier Roman empires, but England was not part of the Holy Roman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why lions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royal Arms of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090624002123/http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk:80/content/147/the-name-and-arms-of-the-college to http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/147/the-name-and-arms-of-the-college
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Royal Arms of England. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630062430/https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello
I was wondering if the modern rendition (here) of the very first arms of Richard the Lionheart should be used instead. The current image can be moved to another bubble to show where the rendition comes from. --AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the image you point to is one of three possibilities that different scholars have favored, and all of them are guesses because we can't possibly know colors when all we have is a seal. The seal is all we know, so the seal is best to show. Agricolae (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is more likely that the colors would remain red and yellow, but I do see your point.--AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't 'remain' red and yellow: the earliest colors we know in the family are blue and yellow.  Likewise some close kin used other lion color combinations, making it really hard to be definitive in terms of when red and yellow became the colors. I tend to agree, it was probably red and yellow, particularly seeing other coats of immediate relatives, but certainty eludes us. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Modern Rendition of the First Arms? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress