Talk:Coat of arms of the Washington family

message: The bars are in fess but the mullets are in chief... I don't think that's what it says now, does it?  Doesn't read right to me.  Can anyone comment? -- Y not? 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the words "in fess", because I didn't understand what they were intended to be doing in that context... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In heraldry, the default way of grouping three objects is two above and one below (i.e., roughly in the form of an upside-down triangle). Thus, if a blazon read “Argent, three Mullets Gules,” it's implicitly understood that they are grouped in that pattern. If instead you want to group the three objects in a straight horizontal line you would say “in fess,” e.g., “Argent, three Mullets in fess Gules.” In the case of the Washington arms, because it is specified that the mullets are in chief (i.e., above the two bars in the middle) the default assumption changes to placing any objects there in a straight line (i.e., in order to make anything placed there fit properly). So “in fess” doesn’t need to be added. If the blazon intended for the mullets at the top of the shield to be placed in the two above, one below format this would have to be specified, usually by saying “Argent two Bars Gules, in chief three Mullets of the second two and one”—the phrase “two and one” indicating how the mullets are to be placed. - Gothamscholar (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the blazon make sense? 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *See below. GregJackP Boomer!  06:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Your evidence shows it is a descriptive title and there is no common name. It also doesn't invalidate the fact that family members can use the family arms. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's your view, not everyone's. GregJackP Boomer!  06:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *See Johnbod reply to your comment. Also a phrase like "George Washington's army" does not mean it is a personal levy of GW's, who've sworn fealty unto him as lord and master. So, as I said, it isn't his personal arm's, it's his family's which he can use. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the King’s College of Arms website on first landing page. In a paragraph it details that there is no such thing as a family arms or crest. There never has been. They are only made for an individual and they are not inherited. George Washington diary points this out from a letter from King’s College on the origin of the Arms in question. In the letter it describes the owner of that Arms. And the family tree bio.  Contribudor (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: the article says that 
"The Washington coat of arms appears in stone on the grave of a James Washington (d. 1580) in the north chapel of the parish church of Saint Laurence in Adwick-le-Street, South Yorkshire, where he was lord of the manor.[15] However, there is no proved ancestral link between him and George Washington"
now i put it to you that not only is this probably untrue based on local evidence (records and the like), but their tomb bearing these arms is in the local cemetery thus THEIR use of this crest is undeniable and IF the ancestral link is unproven than these ARE NOT PROVED TO BE THE ARMS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
now Doncaster is a town that has many links with the formation of the USA ....many colony founders lived here (one in particular lived in Austerfield)so this connection is not surprising, and it is entirely plausible that a branch of George Washington's family lived here as this article describes
http://doncasterhistory.co.uk/local-history-3/famous-doncastrians/george-washington/
this isnt proof mind you ....it does put a decent enough case in favour however, but is by no means proof but this ISNT my issue 
but what is the issue i am trying to raise is that it is UNDISPUTED that this crest belongs to the family that lived in Adwick, thus if it has been proven that Washington himself used these arms (i dont know may be when the right to bear arms was drawn up it wasnt guns he was talking about ......just my joke lol) than the link wouldnt be disputed would it?
Tony Spike (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  adwick tombstone no proved link means these are not proved to be george washingtons arms