Talk:Burgher arms

Removed content from the Germany section of the article - assumption of arms
user 193.235.215.103 wrote:


 * The emperors of the Holy Roman Empire forbade in a series of Laws fron the XV century and onwards the free assumption of arms. Arms were considered a privilege and therefore they could only be bestowed to non-nobles by the emperour or those empowered by him to do so; e.g the counts palatine.
 * This circumstance, and also the fact that holders of self-assumed arms were fined from time to time, strongly supports the idea that the matter of new arms indeed never was a question of a free personal assumption: why would anyone pay large sums to a Count palatine for a privilege of arms if they could indeed be assumed freely?
 * This circumstance, and also the fact that holders of self-assumed arms were fined from time to time, strongly supports the idea that the matter of new arms indeed never was a question of a free personal assumption: why would anyone pay large sums to a Count palatine for a privilege of arms if they could indeed be assumed freely?


 * this text was removed from main article, but may warrant discussion.

I removed these texts, because they do not have sources and seem to mix different things together due to limited knowledge. According to some sources, Holy Roman emperors made gradually limitations to free assumpion of arms in Austria, but not in the Holy Roman Empire. This seems to be correct, but is needs reliable sources, which come not from the point of wiew of a different heraldic tradition, e.g. British. Unfortunately, there are often lots of misunderstandings in British heraldic literature about German tradition, which is very different. My wiew, in addition to other sources mentioned in the article, comes from Sven Tito Achen's book Heraldikkens femten glaeder (1978). (Terot (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect citation page number
I note that citation [5] is incorrect in at least the page number, most likely due to a simple typo (the others from the work in question are all correct). I have not found the cited material in my copy of the book, though I will continue looking for it: if the original contributor is reading this, could they check their material? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correction. I noticed, that the source information is wrong. My contribution comes from 1991 edition, published by Tiger Books International, London. The citation from this edition: "Occasionally the crest-coronet appears in burgher arms, which is correct only if the arms were granted by a sovereign and the coronet is explicitly mentioned in the grant." I will correct the infomation to the article. (Terot (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC))