Talk:Coat of arms of Denmark

message: but the Sankt Bendts Kirke is not mentioned anywhere in the text. I did find a wiki image Sct. Bendts kirke - coat of arms 2014-04-15-13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsqasem (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The dukes of Holstein-etc descend in the male line from the first Oldenburg kings, so naturally they bear the Oldenburg arms by inheritance, not by borrowing from the "previous" dynasty.  They're a junior branch of the same dynasty.  —Tamfang 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Glücksburg dynasty is indeed a cadet branch of the old Oldenburg dynasty, but my motivation for repeating this interpretation is that Danish tv has shown several broadcasts of the Queen giving tours of Amalienborg Palace, and I vaguely remember her describing the royal arms this way in one of these programmes (I can't remember which one exactly). In simply legal terms, I believe this symbol has been pretty void of content since 1972, since the actual Oldenburg title was only inherited by the Salic law and in any case, the Queen abolished the claim to this and several other titles when she succeeded her father. (Erling Svane (1994): Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben, Odense). My motivation is essentially remembering the Queen describing the Oldenburg symbol this way, but it is a minor matter and if you feel strongly about it, feel free to change it to that the current dynasty is a cadet branch of the former. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that the Crown Prince retains the Oldenburg arms in his escutcheon since he is not an Oldenburg. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldenburg arms 

message: The SVG version by Valentinian currently does not feature the crest (crown). My version (below) does. However the lions are better on Valentinians version. One could transfer the crown of the lions to the other version. Also, what are the best colors? The old version of my picture had brighter colors which I took from some image which is now deleted. I now use the same colors as the image on Vector-Images.com --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike Valentinian, I am no expert, but as I understand it the correct colours are simply gold, blue and red, not a single, specific set of RGB-values. So as best as I can figure out, your version is just fine and the one with brighter colours was probably fine too. A greater authority than me could be http://oldwww.sa.dk/om_statens_arkiver/rigsvaaben/eksempler.htm which has a couple of examples of correct colours for official use. Hemmingsen 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hemmingsen is correct, Danish law does not specify a set of actual RGB-values. Denmark doesn't have a flag law either. In 1819, king Frederick VI chose the easy solution by simply stating that future depictions of the Danish national arms should imitate a single official drawing. The closest one can come to official legislation is the 1959 white paper (betænkning nr. 216 af 1959) and the 1972 royal decree (reprinted as "Indenrigsministeriets bekendtgørelse nr. 488", published in Lovtidende, 16 November 1972), but they're both based on the 1819 rules. Which seems to be a possible explanation for why Denmark has never specified the actual colours, and why official heraldry for almost 200 years has used a heraldic crown with little similarity with the actual crown of King Christian V. Valentinian T / C 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crest and colors 

message: Maybe Poul Anderson's book "Three Hearts and Three Lions" could be mentioned -- a significant number of Americans in the 1950s and 1960s who would have never otherwise heard of the Danish coat of arms were exposed to a version of it through that book... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribute

message: This lions/leopards thing needs to be sorted. I've frequently encountered an assertion that England's gold lions on red can't really be lions because there's more than ONE of them, and male lions are solitary. So, it is argued, they are "leopards". (Whatever is true of mature male lions, I do wonder what could be more solitary than a leopard, which on film at any rate is always shown up a tree with an herbivore carcass that it has dragged up there to keep it from scavengers. Now in this article I'm finding for the first time an assertion that things aren't lions if they are facing the viewer ("guardant"). There's not going to be agreement on this since it probably traces to the highest ranking heraldic authority or chivalry-court in various countries, and, absent treaties, there's no reason to expect different countries' heralds to agree. Neither will recognize the jurisdiction of the other. Beyond doubt Garter King of Arms is never going to say England's gold creatures on red are NOT lions. What Wikipedia needs to do is just cite the disagreeing authorities who say what they say, while not taking sides. WHO SAYS if it's more than one creature it has to be a leopard not a lion? WHO SAYS if it's facing the viewer (guardant) it's got to be a leopard not a lion? Just tell us who says what, and don't write sentences that agree or disagree with any of them.2604:2000:C682:2D00:95A1:955E:6D6A:5A64 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lions/Leopards

message: In the section #Other members of the Royal Family, the arms of the princesses are described as "composed of the shield of arms of her husband impaled with those of her own...", but the illustrations do not show impaled arms. At least one must be wrong - illustration or text? --Palnatoke (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, are the arms shown for the members of the Royal Family official? I could not find any information about that on the Royal House website.179.208.240.220 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impaled?