Talk:Coat of arms of England

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

Why did Henry not add Ireland to the royal arms? Was there a dispute with the King of Scots, over Edward Bruce's legacy? IP Address 13:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A question about the England football badge, crest or coat of arms.
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). &mdash;Tamfang 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Tudor rose.--Hannes de Correct me! 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any similarities between the english and the swabian Hohenstaufen arms ?
Have there been any relations between Hohenstaufen and England ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.128.235.222 (talk • contribs) 21:13, July 16, 2006.

England - Normandy - Denmark?
Its known that Normandy is named after a the norse, danish king as always been using tree lions, is it possible that then the norse possede normandy they also brought along their coats of arms, as they did in Tallinn Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig and Lûneburg. Could the english coats of arms be a version of the danish, from a time then the design where not fixed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.198.210.66 (talk • contribs) 15:42, August 17, 2006.


 * The trouble is that there were Normans in Gaul for two centuries before the earliest trace of what we'd call heraldry. There's no shield with three lions on the Bayeux Tapestry.  &mdash;Tamfang 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's potentially true but it's so long before the invasion it's hardly worth mentioning. R johnson 12:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're talking about a system in which some symbols are known to have endured eight centuries; their continuity for a few centuries before that, if it could be established, would certainly be worth mentioning. &mdash;Tamfang 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

England - Denmark - Lower Saxony ?
It is correct that the Danish arms is related to the arms of Schleswig, Tallinn, Estonia and Lüneburg, but regarding the three lions, one should rather look c. 50 to 100 years after the end of the Viking Age. The interesting bit here is that both England and Denmark adopted insignia carrying three lions, and German prince Henry the Lion who ruled in NW Germany also adopted a lion insignia. Both Henry the Lion and the Valdemarian kings of Denmark strongly opposed the power of the Holy Roman Empire and Richard had such a troubled relationship with the Emperor that Richard was imprisoned passing through Germany. Given this background, it would make sense if the three rulers had adopted similar arms as they shared common enemies; Holy Roman Emperors Frederick I and Henry VI. This is at least the guess of Danish heraldist Erling Svane.(Erling Svane: Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben, Odense University Press, 1994, p. 16-17.) Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of Henry the Lion's arms but I've asked WP:Germany for help. Richard the Lion-hearted ascended the English throne in 1189, and Canute VI of Denmark ascended the Danish throne in 1182.

Aquitaine
"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)

When he gained Aquitaine by marriage, later King Henry of England was Duke of Normandy. The coat of arms of Normandy are two yellow leopards on red ground. The coat of arms of Aquitaine is one yellow leopard on red ground. The coat of arms of the house Anjou (Plantagenêt) could have been a combination of these similar coats of arms. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorial_des_r%C3%A9gions_de_France Thw1309 17:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can write that link as fr:Armorial des régions de France (note the leading colon). &mdash;Tamfang 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a french homepage http://perso.numericable.fr/~earlyblazo/index.htm, showing the different coats of arms of Richard Lionheart, the first bearer of this coat of arms. He used the coat of arms with the three lions passants (leopards), when he returned from crusade and captivity. The hompage of the town of Bordeaux http://www.bordeaux.fr/ebx/portals/ebx.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pgPresStand8&classofcontent=presentationStandard&id=6931 says, that under Enlish rule, this town´s coat of arms showed the three lions passants of the English Kings as a combination of the two leopards of Normandy and the leopard of Aquitaine. "Le léopard : c’est bien sûr le léopard des rois d’Angleterre (et non de la province de Guyenne). Pendant la domination anglaise, le blason de Bordeaux comporte trois léopards. En effet, Richard-Cœur-de-Lion joint aux deux léopards de Normandie celui que les Anglais ont donné aux armes de Guyenne." Thw1309 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

the leopards alone

 * 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)

It derives from the seals of office of the Bailiffs of Jersey and Guernsey (which of course bore the monarch's arms, which were then simply 'Gules three lions passant Or' (before the quartering with the French arms in 1340), and it simply, over time (but prior to 1340), being considered that the arms were the same as those of the two bailiwicks respectively.

The College of Arms did an investigation into it at the turn of the 20th century.

See here: http://www.hubert-herald.nl/INHOUD.htm

Guernsey *does* use a sprig of broom behind the escutcheon (shield), which usually would not be sufficient difference.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened between 1603 and 1801?
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)

Revamped
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)
 * 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)

indefinite

 * The escutcheon, or shield, featuring three lions is traced to King Richard I of England's Great Seal of the Realm, which initially used a single lion rampant, or else two lions, but in 1198, was altered indefinitely to depict three lions passant.

Does this mean the change was (at first) uncertain, or did someone mistake indefinite for a synonym of permanent? —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad. Made it a tad clearer. According to source material, there is uncertainty about the first great seal of Richard I using one or two lions. --Jza84 | Talk  11:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, these two historical references are missing from the Article.


 * Norman kings of the English: William I, William II, Henry I. Gules, two lions passant guardant in pale or. (Attribution only) (1066-c1195). ref . The Royal Arms. Charles Hassler. (p6. fig2) (1980). ISBN: 0904041204. ref [File:Blason Normandie.png]
 * The arms granted by Richard II, to Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. (Descendant of Edward I & Henry III) .ref. The Art of Heraldry. An Encyclopaedia of Armory. Arthur Charles Fox-Davis. (p335. fig823) (1904). ISBN: 0906223342. ref. [File:Thomas de Mowbray Ist Duke of Norfolk.svg], Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Setephen2nd. Just wondering if there was anything else missing? I think there are a couple of weak areas that, if fixed up, could prompt this article to go for WP:GA status:


 * Why were lions chosen by the Normans in the first place? I know there's speculation out there about it being a symbol of bravery, but I've also read (maybe a year or two back) that it has associations with Christianity.


 * (addition) Animals are considered the most noble bearing, then birds, then fish, in the scale of heraldic dignity. It is a rule in heraldry that animals, birds, &c, are to be considered according to their best and most noble qualities: thus a lion or a fox do not represent savageness or theft: but majesty and nobleness are typified by the former, and wit and cunning by the latter. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to books, why did Richard I add the third lion?
 * The Banner section is a little thin - does anybody have anything else to add?


 * Hope you guys can help, --Jza84 | Talk  13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Quote: 1x lion = Guyenne) I'll check my genealogies to see who was descended from whom. (NB: Channel Isles (3 lions) were once part of Normandy!) See also: Mr. Wimberley Lecture: Doncaster: 1841
 * In “Rastell’s Pastyme of People (1529)”, a woodcut of Henry I showing his arms, depicts two leopards passant guardant, each with definitive spotted coats and without any manes. This early C16th depiction may represent the 1st reference to Lions v. Leopards arguements. .ref. Coll: Radio Times Hulton Picture Library. Ref.
 * The third lion was not added to the pair of Dukes of Normandy lions, until the end of the Reign of Richard cour-de-lion, probably in reference to his descriptive name. Richard I was also the 1st English king to have borne a ‘royal crest,’ a Lion passant – painted on the plate surrounding his helmet, which has formed part of the royal crest ever since. Edward I was then the first king to add marks of difference or cadency, to these three lions. After which, the 1st ‘quartering’ of these arms with others, was then adopted by Edward III in 1340. Since the reign of Edward III, the three lions have been augmented by the arms of France, Scotland, Ireland, Nassau, and Hanover, but only those of Scotland and Ireland remain. Ref . The Royal Arms. Charles Hassler. (1980). ISBN: 0904041204. ref.
 * (addition) An interesting reference to the three lions, are the Arms of Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk (d.1400). Heraldic achievement, originally outside the Doge’s Palace, Venice; Showing France ancient 1st & 4th quarters, three lions 2nd & 3rd. (inc: collar of SS, crowned lion crest, hart & three feathers) ref. ‘Archaeologia’ (Vol xxix., app 387) (1842) Also the arms of one of his descendants, Howard Earl of Surrey, for which he was attainted – excecuted in 1547 (p117)&(p144)– Dictionary of heraldry. Foster. (1902 & 1996)ISBN: 1851703098. NB: J Brook-Little Edition. preface quote: “I have in no way edited Fosters work, 1989.” When I showed him what was edited out of the original book, he apologised. Steve Stephen2nd (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff. I'll try and integrate this into the article. Intended to mention leopards in the Blazon section (as well as an interpretation of the blazon). Was also thinking about a Mottoes, crests and other insignia immediately after the Blazon section, as a space to discuss the additions made by kings to their personal arms (not dissimillar to the Arms_of_Canada section). --Jza84 | Talk  19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Addition Notes: the Helm affronté is seen on the Royal Arms of Henry VIII (re; 1st born son of the king - pre-Elizabeth I.) / Edward III, also had two panthers? See: [File:Edward III Trinity.JPG|100px]], / the Greyhounds are termed as “collared gules”. / Henry VIII, should read as a dragon gules and bull sable & (dragon & greyhound) & (dragon & cock argent). The Royal Crest shield-image is termed as: Sinister-chief-angled. NB: a heraldic image often used, but has NEVER been heraldically explained.
 * At the end of 2nd paragraph, should this say along with the flag of St. George…is. NB: A separate section (Styles) might be relevant to the references to Kings, England, and the English. ie. William I = ”King of the English” Hen I = (KotE) and Duke of the Normans. Matilda = Lady of the English. Hen II = (KotE)+(DotN) and Aquitanians and Count of the Angevins and Lord of Ireland &c. John = Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Anjou. Inc ref to Magna Carta: By the Grace of God King of England - Know that before God - To all free men of our Kingdom. A very informative article, well done, keep up the good work. Regards Steve Stephen2nd (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimidiation: Cinque Ports etc.
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)


 * 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)


 * Er yes, 3 or 4 shields next to each other would be very effective.Lozleader (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

More uses
Royal Society may be of interest.

The use of the royal arms or any portion thereof by towns and cities is now controlled more tightly: "'In the Middle Ages there seems to have been little control over the use of royal emblems by civic authorities; many towns embodied lions and fleurs-de-lis in their insignia, and in due course received the heralds' sanction. This casual assumption of charges from the Royal Arms is no longer permissable...' (Scott-Giles p.10)" He quotes from a Home Office letter that states "From time to time this position has been pointed out to local authorities who have been using these emblems without permission, but no general instruction has been issued." This supported by the fact that Royal Warrants were required for the grants to Norfolk County Council in 1904 and London County Council in 1914. Walsall must be the most blatant trangressor!

Lozleader (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a beautiful version of the Royal Society's full arms here, in stained glass. Complete with supporters too. I can redraw the sheild version in the same style as the rest of the graphics on the page, but only in .png format. I think this all great stuff though. --Jza84 | Talk  14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested (here) that the arms of the Royal Society be (re)drawn. Was you thinking of something like User:Jza84/Sandbox2 for the composition of the section? It could be expanded with the research you have done? --Jza84 | Talk  15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes something like that seems a good approach. Perhaps group the dimidiations as one, and then find some rationale for grouping the others.
 * I wonder if the arms of the Diocese of Lincoln as seen here have any connection with the royal arms? Lozleader (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get my head round Inkscape so that I can get some of the basic arms sorted. A google search suggests that the Arms of the Cinque Ports has a fancy shaped shield - is that true/necessary? And were the ships gold or silver (seem to have found examples of both)? --Jza84 | Talk  17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The shield can be (almost) any shape, it's a matter of fashion really... the blazon just describes what goes on the shield. A nice clean "heater" shape (like the bottom of an iron) is usually preferred these days. There are some very odd baroque shapes around, though! Just checked and the Confederation arms have gold lions/ship hulks. Colouring varies among the individual ports: Sandwich has gold lions/silver ships, Deal used to use the same arms as Sandwich until 1968 when they got a proper grant with gold lions. Tenterden has arms with an ancient ship with the main sail a banner of arms with silver ships. Hastings has silver ships.Lozleader (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

various changes
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Yeah, sure - that would be a better alternative I guess. Good idea. :) --Jza84 | Talk  10:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

attributed supporters?
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)

royal ancestors
I'm unsure of one of the banners in the illustration of Eliz.I's funeral. I captioned it as "Richard duke of York and Cicely Neville" because nothing else seemed to fit, but the Neville saltire is on a field gules, not azure. Any suggestions? —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, Raff Nevill (1295) bore; gules a saltire argent. / John de Nevill (1334) bore; argent a saltire gules, as also ascribed to Sir John Guillim. / Sir Hugh Nevile bt, and John Nevile of Essex bore; azure a lion rampant or. / John Nevile “the forester” bore gules, a lion rampant argent. / also, three other Neviles (Walter, Tebaud, and Theobald) bore azure fields. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you quoting from Foster's Feudal? —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup! Stephen2nd (talk)


 * NB: Kent, Earl of (William Neville, Lord Fauconberg, d. 1463). Colours — white and blue. [Doyle]. Stephen2nd (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This list of Nevilles is all very interesting I'm sure, but what we need is someone who bore Azure a saltire argent and whose husband bore Quarterly France and England, a label.... —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The bordure (seems) red and blue, so it is probably the House of York. Probably, as the picture was created after the death of Elizabeth – possibly during the reign of the Stuarts – the artist may have inserted the blue saltire of Scotland, to represent either Scotland &/or the Stuarts. There are no references to the date of the image, or the artist, so such ‘artistic license’ is mere speculation. With reference the inclusion of this image in the article, it would seem more relevant to explain the existence of the “single lion passant” among the leading banners, as to why this important image has not been included in the article’s “Escutcheon” section? Stephen2nd (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be an awful lot of artistic license to imply that Elizabeth's ancestors included Saint Andrew.
 * What do you want the article to say about the single leopard of Aquitaine? —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise that Richard Duke of York married Saint Andrew! If the colour and charges on the 'label' are those of Richard Duke of York, and there is no known wife with the blue saltire, the saltire image is incorrect, &/or an appeasement rendition by the artist.
 * I've added text on the Lion/leopard of Aquitaine, based on the Elizabeth funeral, existing wiki; Duchy of, Eleanor articles and referrals in the present article. However, I cannot find any (pre-Eleanor) refs as to where, when or from exactly whom this lion originated? IMHO: I also think it was originally a 'badge' which, according to my references - badges preceded all coats of arms and supporters. Such badges were usually set on a roundel, wherein 90% revolved, turns a 'passant' into a 'rampant.' Stephen2nd (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Appeasement? How / of whom / why?
 * Somewhere (not in the lion chapter of TAoH) I've seen pictures suggesting that rampant or passant was at first determined by the shape that the lion was to occupy. —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Appeasements: History, politics, and heraldry of then, and now, is rife with appeasement, despite any/all evidences to the contrary, such appeasements are generally in favour the status quo of those times.


 * The ‘badge’ of the lion of Aquitaine, (IMHO, created by Henry II & Eleanor for Richard the Lionheart), preceded and evolved into the ‘royal crest-lion’. i.e. A lion statant, ensigned with an open crown, all of gold, upon the Cap of Maintenance gules, lined and turned up at the brim ermine, (for Edward III from c.1340, then subsequent sovereigns from 1483). The lion’s guardant posture, appropriate for 2D representation, was gradually adopted for this crest. The cap is probably derived from the cap of estate worn by medieval kings as Dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine. (The Duchy of Aquitaine was ceded by Edward III to his son Edward, the Black Prince, who also used the Cap of Maintenance with his crest.) Until 1660, it was ‘the crown’ on which the crest stands, and that on the lions head, which varied in shape with each ruler. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, chroniclers and artists have traditionally flattered whoever was in power, which I assume is what you meant by "appeasement" — but please consider answering, at least speculatively, the question that I asked: who might be appeased, and how, by that specific change to a banner? Were the Nevilles out of favor in 1603? (Wouldn't it be simpler to omit that banner entirely?) —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Although there was more than the Scottish heir in line to the throne, the Neville arms would seem only to represent the ‘saltire’ itself. In all speculative - 400 years later - probability, someone may just have re-touched the - ‘red’ into ‘blue’, to represent Scotland, missing from the flags of England, Wales and the many others. Any Englishman c.1603, looking at this image with a blue banner (of Scotland), would be under the impression that the new (Scottish) king was related to their Queen, or at the very least, the new king was dutifully represented as a mourner. The appeasement, as such, would be towards the English, mourning their loss, and to the new king, whose representations were conspicuous by such absence. If you, or anyone else, has a more viable reason, explanation, or any alternative speculation...? Ta 4 now, Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As the significance of this blue/red anomaly is of such historical interest, in seeking a more viable explanation, I have edited this interesting Tamfang armorial/genealogical research into the more relevant Elizabeth I of England article. Furthermore, I have re-stated this discussion on its Talk page. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The new king needed to emphasize that he was descended from Tudors, not that the Tudors were descended from Scotland Herself. Your scheme implies a Man in the Street who would [i] recognize the Scottish saltire and [ii.a] understand the claim of descent and not recognize how absurd it was or [ii.b] mistake the arms of the consorts for emblems of mourners and not worry his head about who the other eleven might be. —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In all probability the (English) Man in the Street would easily recognize the two basic national flags of England and Scotland. Also in all probability, as this was a single image, displayed in a single venue, 99% of the Man in the Street, probably never saw this image in their lifetimes, until it was reproduced and distributed, possibly 100’s of years after its initial creation. May I also add that to my knowledge, no-one, with the exception of you, had previously stated the identities of the banners, or deduced this saltire was an incorrect depiction of the Neville arms. Of course the Neville, and all other non-Stuart and Hanoverian potential claimants, were out of favour; the Stuart, Hanoverian and Sax Coburg-Gotha incumbents most certainly suppressed all arguments relating to the validities of their questionable successions and tenures, they still do! Stephen2nd (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, change "Man in the Street" to "Man in the Corridors of Power"; the propaganda gimmick becomes no more plausible. (Where does the image come from, anyway?) Much easier to assume it's an error. — That I'm the first Wikipedian to annotate the banners doesn't say much. — Whatever its color, the painting wouldn't assert a Neville claim to the English throne.  —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoever uploaded this, first described it as the banners of the Queens ancestors, only they know where the image came from, and the description wherefrom. Isn’t it an appeasement to excuse the plausibility of propaganda &/or censorship as a mere gimmick, or an error, based solely on the ease of assumption? Stephen2nd (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to File:Funeral Elisabeth.jpg it's taken from a book, Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum (2003). If we had that book we might learn more.
 * Of course, my argument is an attempt to curry favor with the Stuart dynasty; I'm hoping to be appointed ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire. —Tamfang (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PKM, who scanned the picture, wrote this on my Commons talk page:
 * Okay, of the four sources I was able to quickly lay my hands on, none actually discuss the banners except to say that they are the arms of Elizabeth's royal ancestors marshaled with those of their wives. There are two anonymous manuscripts; the one in color (British Library Additional MS 35324) and a pen-and-ink drawing in roll form (Addtional MS 5408).  I have uploaded a higher res scan of the banners from that version here File:Eliz funeral banners bw.png (it's a bit cutoff because it actually runs into the binding of the book).  I am certain that you are right; it's intended to be Cecily Neville and the artist simply mis-colored it. Marks and Payne, British Heraldry, British Museum Press 1978 say the pen-and-ink MS "has been attributed to William Camden, but it does not appear to be in his hand."  I haven't yet found anything that talks about who might have made the color version. - PKM ( talk ) 01:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

—Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

serious to the max

 * 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)

Royal Banner
I undid this change based on quite a few factors. I won't list them all, but here's a flavour:


 * Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article...", it should be "accessible" establish key facts and may be up to four paragraphs in length.
 * Per WP:BOLDTITLE, alternative names or other main topics within an article ought to be in boldface.
 * Per WP:SIZE, this article is fairly average in size - there shouldn't be any technical difficulties with the length AFAICT.
 * WP:MERGE, it was raised and discussed to have a 'combined' Royal Arms and Royal Banner page on the basis that they have a shared history. Without the final paragraph, I'm concerned we may not be giving appropriate weight to the banner format.

I do agree with the conern about repetiion. This could/should be dealt with, IMHO, by restructuring the "banner" section with more/alternative material. Thoughts? --Jza84 | Talk  11:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are the various permutations of 'royal banner' and the 'misnomer' passage necessary to "a concise overview of the article"?
 * How about a single combining sentence like "The arms of the monarch are and have been displayed both as a shield and as a flag called the Royal Banner"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review
I am starting the GA review here. → ROUX   ₪  00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Earliest arms are inaccurate
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)

common ancestors of Eleanor and Henry

 * 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)

And perhaps pigs will sing. —Tamfang (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Flaw in article & title: These are personal arms
These are the personal arms of the monarchs of England, not the arms of "the country" or "the nation". There is an artificial separation of the topic into Royal Arms of England & Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, when the ruling house and its arms simply continued to develop as it had done when the kingdoms of England and France "merged" as was symbolised by Henry VI & his arms impaling France & England. A nation or country cannot have arms, only persons and corporations, deemed to be legal persons, can bear arms. Nations have flags. The personal arms of Queen Elizabeth II are therefore the same whether in her capacity of Queen of England or Queen of the United Kingdom. Her arms as Queen of Scotland are however different. Thus the Royal arms of England are not today synonymous with the Arms of Plantagenet, as this article seems to suggest. There is also a separate article on the Armorial of Plantagenet, which is largely duplicated within Royal Arms of England. All three I would suggest need rationalisation and should be merged into one article named "Royal Arms of the United Kingdom", being the common denominator of all, which will have divert tags from the former articles, and will necessarily have to explain the history of the arms starting with the arms of Plantagenet.(Lobsterthermidor (talk))


 * They're "arms of sovereignty", which have somewhat different heraldic rules from ordinary family coats of arms... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears, by your reversions, that you don't fundamentally understand how WP:BRD works. → ROUX   ₪  08:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos: Your comment is interesting. If true, this concept merits space in the article(s). I haven't seen the concept described with any sense of authority by any writer. It must be borne in mind that Fox-Davis in particular was no expert on the history of heraldry and knew little, and cared little by his own admission, about the history of feudal England, essential to an understanding of what the "Royal Arms" really signify today. He referred with disdain to those who concerned themselves with historical heraldry, and his books are full of "howlers" when he tries to enter into this area. My source for this is the criticism of his work by J. Horace Round. But I'm not discounting your assertion of "different rules" rather saying a credible source is needed with a rational & clear exposition to "suspend" the normal assumption that arms are fundamentally personal. Roux: The BRD cycle can often be a vicious tool to use on the bona fide work covering several edits of a contributor. Perhaps I should have done my edits one by one over a period, but that's often not the best way to work productively. I would prefer it if you would read my text, which only covers the first couple of paras and boxes in the table up to c. 1500, and edit any parts you think need amendment (or reversion) with more surgical precision - more work I know, but I think some (all I hope of course) of what I have contributed might improve the validity of the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk))


 * I've come out of a year-long retirement to debate this. This is making something of a "pig's ear" of what was a very well contructed, succinct, and well referenced article. The changes made by Lobsterthermidor are breaching a whole host of the basics of editting - particularly WP:LEAD, but mostly WP:CITE. Putting aside that no references have been added, that level of detail added is way too much for the lead section of this article, and needs to go. Can we get some consensus before big changes like this are made again to what was deemed a Good Article? I am very much opposed to its restoration before this is achieved. --Jza84 | Talk  14:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Early representation
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?&mdash; Rod talk 19:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.&mdash; Rod talk 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What about these arms? Stephen of England
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)


 * 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)

Article title
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)

The inaccurate title leads to all sorts of repeats in the text eg the infobox [Royal Arms of England are a] "National symbol of England" No! The three Lions are a national symbol the rest of the quartering are about other places. I suspect that before the Acts of Union the Royal Banner would not have been a parliamentary affair (placing the design under statute -- I don't know it was but the wording of this article implies it is now covered by statute), but part of the Royal prerogative and custom. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought the same, but it's referenced - well referenced. --Jza84 | Talk  09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why lions
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)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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 II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Modern Rendition of the First Arms?
Hello I was wondering if the modern rendition 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * England Away Shirt 2010-2012 (crest).jpg

Lions, leopards or leopards?
The book The Heraldic Imagination by Rodney Dennys (published 1975) describes the animal displayed on the English royal arms as follows:

The heraldic Leopard, which we now blazon as Lion passant guardant, was the offspring of the adulterous union of a Lioness and a Pard, or a Lion and a female Pard. Nicholas Upton said that the 'Leopard ys a most cruell beeste engendered wilfully of a Lion and a beeste called a Parde, lyk unto a Catt of the moutaine' He also says that 'a Leopard ought to be painted wt his whole face shewed abroad openly to the lookers on', a point made in the Tractus de Armis, by John de Bado Aureo, who adds that to bear a Leopard in arms is a token that the first bearer of the arms was begotten in adultery. It will be recalled that when Richard the Lion Heart altered his arms in about 1195, after losing his Great Seal during his captivity, he changed them to three gold Leopards on a red field, and this may have been in allusion to his famous great-grandfather William the Bastard, the conqueror of England. (pp. 135-136)

Would it then not be most accurate, rather than the Lion of England being intended to represent, or having originally represented, a leopard (the African animal blazoned "Pard") the Lion of England actually most accurately represents/represented the offspring of a lion and a leopard (the hybrid animal blazoned "Leopard") - with the possible connotations of bastardy the author alludes to?

Whilst perhaps confusing, all these lions and leopards, I do think it is worth adding in some small form to the article, that it is very possible the charge in question is supposed to represent a leopard rather than a leopard. WikiCobalt-Chloride- (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is little in that quote that isn't problematic, and calling this 'very possible' is not well founded. By the 15th century the two animals had become distinct in heraldic usage, and had developed a back-story for what they represented, but it is anachronistic to view these distinctions as having existed in the 12th century, when heraldry was in its infancy. His great-grandfather used a lion totem. His grandfather's arms have six lions on them. His uncle's arms had a lion. His brother had two lions. His brother-in-law had a lion. His own first coat was a lion, etc. There is no reason to think his second arms were anything but lions, and there is no indication any other type of felid was used in 12th century heraldry - the proliferation and distinction of heraldic charges was a later development, after a stage when the two terms were simply used to distinguish rampant from passant - these heralds were not wildlife biologists, and there is no reason to think that they drew species-specific distinctions any more than they did so for eagles. As to making a reference to William's bastardy, that is just overthinking it - not only was William's bastardy not something they celebrated, that is not how 12th century heraldry worked. Richard went with 3 lions because it had to be different from the 1 lion of his lost seal (and from the vast majority of animal coats, that mostly had one lion) and his brother had already been using 2-lions from before Richard became king, so perhaps with inspiration of other royal three-lion coats (Hohestauffen, Denmark) he may have come across on crusade, 3 it was. Agricolae (talk)


 * WikiCobalt-Chloride- -- The term "leopard" referring to a kind of lion belongs more to French heraldic terminology than English. In English heraldry, lions and leopards are distinct (and leopards don't occur very often). AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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)