Talk:Coat of arms of Sweden

The two coats of arms have in this article previously been called the Greater Coat of Arms of the Realm and the Lesser Coat of Arms of the Realm in English. These names are, however, largely invented and doesn't match official Swedish terminology in English. Both the Royal Court and Swedish National Bank call them the greater national coat of arms and the lesser national coat of arms. Note also the usage of lower case, which is consistent with modern Swedish writing rules). I have therefore changed the text accordingly. Thomas Blomberg 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Command Flag
Would it be right to call the Personal Command Flag, the banner of arms of Sweden? 202.89.153.228 07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, it is obviously a banner of arms of Sweden. It should however not be used in any other way than as a command flag for His Majesty the King. E.G. 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms image
According to Camptown the law describes a "general fashion" of the coat of arms that can be depicted in different ways. By this he considers it allowable to add insignia orders below the coat of arms, eventhough these are not mentioned in the official law (which says only "Huvudskölden är krönt med en kunglig krona och omges av Serafimer ordens insignier.").

He has given no sources for his claim.

I don't understand why he doesn't want to replace it with Image:Sweden greater coa1908-modern.png. It is not only accurate according to the law, it also looks better.

Fred-J 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Not even a blind man would agree that Fred J:s png-image (named 1908modern) "looks better". Bondkaka 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me about the preferences of blind men. You make your claim this eventhough the jpg image has incorrect colors on the lions claws, tongue and teeth (they should be red), the three crowns look more brown than golden, and the eagle and stars of the Bernadotte coat of arms are hardly distinguishable (they should be golden). There is actually a law about how the coat of arms should look: Lag (1982:268) om Sveriges riksvapen.
 * I am okay with people having different taste. But adhering to the blazon must come first.
 * Fred-J 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Add: It has come to my attention that the mantling must be Ermine which I had missed. I will have to correct that. / Fred-J 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... User:Fred J version may possibly be correct enough, but why only include parts of the Order of Charles XIII? --Camptown 12:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing-- I hadn't. I'll have to fix that. / Fred-J 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this wierd version of The greater coat of arms used on this page? That's not the way Sweden's coat of arms look like, it is too boxy and looks compressed. Why not use the real version, used by Swedish Wikipedia? Got some rude comment by user:Roxy when I changed the picture earlier, maybe he can tell?

--Leffe00 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Bernadotte
Does anyone have an actual reference which says that Bernadotte blazon as rendered here is incorrect? - SSJ t 11:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. That picture is not correct for several reasons. Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte (King Charles XIV John) never had any stars at all in the CoA of Pontecorvo - neither as Prince of Pontecorvo, nor as King of Sweden. The stars was introduced in the CoA of the son and grandchildren of Charles XIV John - probably as a mark of cadency. In the mid 19th century they became a part of the CoA of the King in an obscure way. It is not exactly clear how that happened. As long as the stars has been a part of the CoA they have been placed in the chief. Currently the stars should be arranged in the constellation Ursa Major. Furthermore the bridge, the eagle and the stars should currently be arranged in that order in one field.


 * The primary source for the current design of the CoA is of course the act on the Coat of Arms of Sweden (1982:268 lag om Sveriges riksvapen). The CoA can be viewed on this page published by the Royal Swedish Court and on this page published by the Swedish National Archives. The most extensive reference for the history of the CoA of Bernadotte is Arvid Berghman: Dynastien Bernadottes vapen och det svenska riksvapnet (Stockholm, 1944).


 * I would also like to point out that the coronets in the shield of the lesser CoA is never depicted with five visible leafs. The coronets is alway shown with only three leafs. /B****n (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm of course fine with it if this is the case. I'll fix the image. Do you think you could write this info into the article and add proper references? That would be very helpful. If we are to stick to the fundamental principles of heraldry, then the number of leafs visible on the coronet is utterly irrelevant, as long as it's still the Swedish king's crown. Perhaps you haven't noticed it, but this old rendering's coronet has five leafs. There is no rule regarding this, since the blazon doesn't specify the number of leaves on the coronet and there is clearly no solid precedence for always having three leafs. - SSJ t 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I could write someting about this but I don't have enough time unitl next month.


 * The heraldic crown of the King of Sweden has by definition five visible leafs. What I was refering to was the coronets in the shield ("three coronets or"). They have never five leafs (the coronets in the linked picture has three leafs). /B****n (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

wheat or vase
How come the article says the charge in the Vasa arms is wheat? It looks like a vase, and google translates the blazon it cites as vase? Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Heraldic sources, including Neubecker and Nevéus, agree that the charge borne by the heirs of Gustav Vasa is indeed intended to be a sheaf or garb of wheat, borne as canting arms representing the Vasa dynasty. Perhaps a little information from the Vasa Museum (see The Vasa Dynasty) can shed some further light on the subject. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read Neubecker, and he indicated that the charge was subject to variance. This article cites the Riksdag, which appears to say it is a vase. This is misleading, for now, I am going to remove the parenthetical. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whaat?
How is the "Royal Family" section relevant to the article subject? Those are personal arms, not governmental arms. I will remove it unless someone can explain convincingly or move it to an article of its own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)