Talk:Earl Mountbatten of Burma

Garter?
Are the arms of the present countess accurate, as depicted on this page? Her father was a Knight of the Garter and therefore was entitled to include the garter as part of his own arms -- but his daughter is not a member of the Order. And I don't believe the garter becomes a permanent part of the arms for all descendants. -- Michael K Smith Talk 02:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the CoA of her father. You can tell most obviously by the fact it is a shield not a diamond and has a crest. The article is about the earldom not the present holder and the picture clickover shows as much. I'm not sure the present form is a problem. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying the Garter is a permanent part of the arms for all subsequent holders of the title or users of the arms? There would then be a large number of descendants of Garter knights whose arms would include the Garter, regardless of the activities of the current user of the arms, and I've never seen that.


 * Not to mention the fact that the earldom itself doesn't have arms assigned to it. Arms are an individual possession, with differencing. They don't apply directly to the title. In which case, the arms of the countess's father are irrelevant to this article and are only of historical interest. Why not reproduce the arms of the current holder of the title, if you think they should be in there at all? (It's not a fixed rule, by the way, that women's arms must appear in a lozenge rather than a shield. That's just a custom of artwork and has not always been the case in depictions of arms.) -- Michael K Smith Talk 12:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The garter is not permanent and I said nothing different. The Earldom and the supporters can be created so that they have the same effective remainder so they will stay together (and end together) These arms are unusual insofar as they contain a royal honour point inescutcheon so will have had special consideration for their original creation. However back to the point the article is about the title not whoever is the present holder. In most cases where we have arms on such pages wiki tends to display the arms of the first (and/or most famous holder) for obvious and practical reasons see Duke_of_Marlborough_(title). This page isn't Countess Mountbatten so I don't see your issue with choosing her father's arms. Insofar as your point on my remarks about the shield/crest; for English heraldry until very recently it was against the law of arms to use a shield for women (save the sovereign) and is still exceptionally rare to see this departed from. The Crest is still banned. While you can find erroneous examples of practically anything those were/are the rules. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earl Mountbatten of Burma. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170430232921/http://mountbattenofburma.com/ to http://mountbattenofburma.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Earldoms
Although the title is Earl X (and not Earl of X ), the earldom itself is best described as the Earldom of X. This description is supported by reliable historic sources, including Burke's General and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire (1833) at p. 466 (see here:, with the example being the Earl Spencer = the Earldom of Spencer). -- Blairall (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)