Talk:Imperial State Crown

Inconsistence
There are 2 sentences which are inconsistent :

A "The Imperial State Crown is worn annually by the Queen at the State Opening of Parliament. Traditionally, the Crown and other jewels leave in their own carriage and arrive at the Palace of Westminster prior to the Queen's departure from Buckingham Palace. They are then transported to the Robing Room, where the Queen dons her robes and wears the Crown." (The jewels are being kept at the Tower)

B "Because of its weight (910 g), monarchs often choose to wear the Imperial State Crown in their private apartments on and off for a couple of hours on the morning of the State Opening of Parliament so they can get used to the weight and feel comfortable with it on. (One courtier reported on the morning of a State Opening witnessing Queen Elizabeth eating her breakfast and reading newspapers while wearing it.)" (The sovereign has breakfast at Buckingham Palace)

How can statement B then be true ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.23.167 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't see the problem. The monarch and crown are both at Buckingham Palace and they both travel (in separate coaches) to Westminster Palace where the Queen formally puts on the crown. --Cameron* 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a different inconsistency there. The weight of the version of the crown made for QEII is stated, yet there is this nebulous mention of "monarchs" often choosing to wear it. If it is intended to mean Queen Elizabeth II, that is what it should say. There is no other monarch for that particular crown. 70.74.188.103 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

December 2015
OK, I'll bite: the article contains various inaccuracies; for example, the weight given on the Royal Collection website is 1.06 kg and Garrard & Co. is not the Crown Jeweller. A lot of it is inappropriate and just holds up the reader. What the Queen does in private is none of our business, and titillating extracts from Paul Burrell's autobiography do not belong here. "It is also the crown that most often requires repair" is stating the obvious; as the crown most frequently used, of course it requires a lot of maintenance compared to the others. Why mention it? Then we have the old frames (ah, the old frames...) which may be in the Tower of London, or, according to another source, the Museum of London – no one is really sure, so best to leave it out altogether. Everything else was still there in a more concise and easy to read format. I also added many citations from a plurality of sources...

By the way, a very good, RECENT image of the crown is better than a 100-year-old DRAWING of an earlier crown, even if the top part is obscured. Unfortunately, it seems you have taken WP:OWNERSHIP of this article and are prone to WP:POV and WP:Original research. For example, "with a hint of magnificent sparkle effect that is often overwhelmed by photographic lighting" is POV and original research. You also added the words "a copy of" to a caption at Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom on a hunch that a crown in a picture of the Imperial Crown of India might be a copy, despite no evidence to suggest it is anything but the original. Please do not add your own thoughts to the encyclopedia. Firebrace (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The inaccuracies you mention can be changed, but you have essentially rewritten the entire article, deciding for yourself what is our business, whether Burrell's extracts belong, what is stating the obvious (that this crown requires the most maintenance doesn't necessarily follow from its being used the most), whether the uncertainty of the location of the frames obviates their being mentioned at all, etc. I think that you go beyond being concise, and that information has been lost. Your sourcing seems tending to replace online sources with those that aren't.


 * The rationale for the image change should take into account that the very existence of the image is so controversial that the photographer wanted it removed, and that may happen in the future. That's beside the fact of the odd angle that doesn't show it well. You have deleted or relegated several other images to galleries, and have made their captions less informative (I'll accept that my caption you complain about veered into editorializing). Also, you might have another look at WP:OWNERSHIP, as my behavior here doesn't seem to match anything on that page's laundry list of symptoms. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Three users have tried to add the image so there is 3:1 consensus for its inclusion. In spite of this, you keep removing it as if you own the article. The image will never be deleted from the Commons; once an image is uploaded it stops being the property of the author and belongs to the Commons. What the author decides after that is irrelevant and there is no law against using it. In this case, all mention of the author has been removed. It's a great image and we're lucky to have it. I don't understand what you mean about replacing online sources with those that aren't? You're clueless. I'm going to open a dispute resolution request... Firebrace (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Once is unfortunate, twice looks like carelessness
It says in the article here that the Imperial State Crown made for Queen Victoria was dropped and flattened, and it says at State Crown of George I that that crown was dropped and flattened too. Have we an erroneous doubling up here or are crowns lobbed about like cricket balls at State Openings? Giano   (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of re-writing State Crown of George I. The problem you have identified is with that article, not this one... Firebrace (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! So I see. I'm glad to have been of help. Giano    (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Made in?
Which crown is shown on the right? -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a very bad photo of the Imperial State Crown. Firebrace (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be, but it is currently used in a lot of articles (particularly on it.wikipedia.org (shrug!)), and it is also used en.wikipedia (eg. as the info box image on Imperial Crown). Do you know which of the British imperial crowns it is? -- PBS (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the state crown. St Edward's Crown is the coronation crown. We have higher standards on English Wikipedia, and since both sides of the crown are identical, there is nothing to gain by including this particular image. Firebrace (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * May be a I not explaining myself very well. In the article to which you provided a link (State crown) it is writtin that "Because of its age and fragility, the State Crown of George I was replaced in 1838, the new replacement crown was instead called the Imperial State Crown, as was its replacement in 1937." This image is clearly not the "State Crown of George I" but is it an image of the 1838 crown or the 1937, or some other crown not mentioned in that sentence. -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the Imperial State Crown, i.e. the current one, made in 1937 with 1953 alterations. Firebrace (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Interregnum
Re, there is no mention in that source of Cromwell, the Coronation Chair, or melting down the Jewels for coins. What it actually says on page 247 is "By order of the Commonwealth all the Crown Jewels unhappily were ordered to be sold." Firebrace (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're just busting stones and you know it. You gotta stop it.  I've played enough patty-cake with you.  You know that is the accepted history, whether every mincing detail is contained in any individual cite or not.. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So you really are adding stuff because "everybody knows that"; you did no actual research beforehand, and now you're clutching at straws trying to back it up with something. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Firebrace (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, give it up. You are hilarious. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Number of people allowed to touch the crown
The article states that only 3 people are allowed to touch the crown; the monarch, the crown jeweller and the Archbishop of Canterbury. However at the end of the committal service on the 19th of September 2022, the crown jeweller handed the crown to someone who was neither the monarch nor the Archbishop of Canterbury (a Yeoman of the guard?). 88.28.19.194 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * True, and it was then placed on the altar by the Dean of St George's Chapel. No gloves even, and the A of C was feet away. I don't think the guy in red was a Yeoman of the Guard - more likely one of the Yeoman Warders from the Tower, where the regalia live. Not the usual uniform though. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I expect it was someone from the Jewel House. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it was probably one of the royal barge men, to whom the crown jeweller briefly hands the crown at the state opening of parliament before it's given to the Lord Great Chamberlain to carry inside on a cushion. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. See King's Bargemaster. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The ceremony hasn't taken place for some time and this is the first time that it was televised so we could see such details. We may find out more during the forthcoming coronation. In the meantime, I have amended the text to address the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Not wearing crown, if opening Parliament 'before' coronation
Do we need a source, that the British monarch doesn't wear the crown if opening Parliament occurs before the coronation? This relates the State Opening of Parliament page, which doesn't mention this. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The Illustrated London News said of the State Opening of Parliament on November 3, 1953: "Her Majesty wore the Imperial State Crown for the first time at a State opening of Parliament, for when she opened the second session of this Parliament on November 4, 1952, she had not been crowned". Firebrace (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image
I don't dispute that the edited version on the right more closely resembles the current appearance of the Imperial State Crown as seen at rct.uk. But I would argue that this version is nonetheless less suitable than the original on the left: the retouching arguably counts as a mild form of original research, and I don't think we have a way to verify its exactness except by crudely comparing it to present-day photographs. The arches of the retouched crown also look quite unnatural, in my opinion. It would simply be more encyclopedic for this article to provide a definite depiction of how the crown looked at some point in time, rather than a simulated approximation of how it looks like now. —  RAVEN PVFF  · talk · 10:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That image was added to the infobox in 2017. You are the first person in six years to kick up a fuss about it. Happily, we now have some decent photos that can be used instead. Firebrace (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That it hadn't been pointed out in the past doesn't mean that it was free from concern, of course, and recent events have inevitably meant that the attention of more users (including me) has been directed to this article. But I certainly agree that the current image of Elizabeth II is a preferable alternative –&#32;thanks. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 11:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about using a photo of King Charles iii wearing the crown after his coronation. 2401:E180:8861:DC6D:B25:AC47:E7F7:E3CB (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Derafsh Kavian
@Peter Ormond removed information added by me regarding the Kavi Flag on the Imperial State Crown and related information. Please discuss. Clearly the symbol on the Crown is the Derasfsh Kavian rather than the incorrectly attributed fleur symbol. BarakKavi (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability and No original research. The citations in the article do not support your claim. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The association of Derafsh Kavian does not need any 'reliable' source many of which in England have a political agenda anyway, only the association of Anglo with Angiras written in Mahabharat would need it. Identification of the Derash Kavian symbol with the globe only needs people to look at the two symbols and see that they are the same. We will need to go through dispute resolution. Please understand this is quite an important historical association and I will go to the Newspapers and media to have this further investigated as it is easy to see and verify what the symbol on top of the Crown actually is, it doesnt require an expert to see what the symbol looks like, the physical and stylistic resemblance is very clear. BarakKavi (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a cross pattée, which all the citations and all the experts are agreed upon. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats because they dont want to admit the facts. Any attempts to hide the truth are futile as there are many avenues for me to expose this story and put these theories and 'expert' opinions and citations to the test, and surely when I have time and energy and I will do so and the truth will come out. BarakKavi (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)