Talk:Flags of Elizabeth II

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Royal standards of Canada#Sovereign's standard|her personal standard for Canada]] The anchor (#Sovereign's standard) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Princess of York is wrong[edit]

HM The Queen was not known as Princess Elizabeth of York or even just Princess of York between 1944 and 1947 she was simply HRH The Princess Elizabeth she had ceased being HRH Princess Elizabeth of York when her father succeeded to the throne(s). So I shall amend the article Penrithguy (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. My bad. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these arms are actually those of the Queen?[edit]

I think only those used in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. All the other arms are the arms of the nation, not of the Head of State. Opera hat (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not even sure this article needs to exist. It could probably be merged into States headed by Elizabeth II or something like that. Opera hat (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arms of the nation are by definition the arms of the head of state, as the head of state embodies the nation. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case. Coat of arms of the Holy See ≠ Coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI; Coat of arms of Ronald Reagan ≠ Coat of arms of the United States. Opera hat (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2008 (UTc)

Do as you wish; my contributions to the project are at an end until the bullying by G2bambino has been properly addressed. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Australian Royal Symbols says

The Coat of arms of Australia (or more rarely an image of the Queen) is displayed in Australian federal courtrooms. In a practice dating back to colonial times, state courts traditionally display the personal arms of the sovereign (those currently used by the sovereign in right of the United Kingdom); however in New South Wales some of these have been replaced with the state arms.

This definitely makes a distinction between the coat of arms of Australia and the coat of arms of the Queen of Australia. Opera hat (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the coat of arms of Jamaica existed (with its Royal helm and mantling) long before there was ever a Queen of Jamaica. Opera hat (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pastinf what I said on Monarch of Australia: Right you are. I think each state's arms ought to be reviewed individually to see whether action need be taken. Let's keep the discussion in one place. ;) --Cameron * 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-on the contrary; those of canada, australia, new zealand, barbados, jamaica, as well as formerly those of trinidad and tobago, sierra leone, and malta were, hence why she has/had personal flags for them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.198.79 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of Canadian Wikipedians assuming "as in Canada, so in every Commonwealth realm"! National arms are not by definition those of the sovereign; in fact I haven't seen the slightest evidence that Elizabeth uses anything but her own arms (i.e. as seen in England) when she acts as Queen of Australia. In Australian courtrooms, for instance, the English-style arms are displayed. Slac speak up! 11:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

89.240.130.48 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)misconceptions89.240.130.48 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) they are arms of dominion, and in a monarchy; which all commonwealth realms are, the arms of the monarch and the arms of the state are one and the same. whether the jamaican arms existed prior to there being a separate monarch, or whether the uk arms are used in australian court rooms, is neither here nor there. the former is irrelevant, the latter bad heraldic practice. -I feel I must at this point make three points:[reply]

i.Regarding Ronald Reagan; in a republic, the people are sovereign. That is literally what the word 'republic' -from the Roman 'res publica'; i.e. 'public concern' means. This is why President Reagan, as well as Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, possessed arms that were different from those of the United States.So, the President of a state with a republican constitution is not the sovereign of the state; the people are, so hence, the arms of a republic (if indeed, it has them and not some non-heraldic emblem, as is common with republics) belong to the people as a whole; as well as the state itself.

This is true of republican nations throughout history: it was certainly true of; for example,

the doges of venice, who bore personal arms. (see here:http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Italie/Doges_Venise_1.htm)that were completely different from those of the Venetian republic itself(see here:http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Italie/Venise.htm) The stadtholders of the dutch republic bore different arms(see here:http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Benelux/Pays_Bas.htm -the arms of the stadtholders under 'souverains'- although I am at pains to point out the dutch stadtholder WAS NOT the sovereign of the dutch republic.) from those of the republic itself(see here: see here:http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Benelux/Pays_Bas.htm -the red arms with the lion, second from the top of the page). It was only in 1815, (or 1806 if you want to count the napoleonic kingdom) and the creation of the dutch monarchy when the arms of the dutch head of state and the arms of the dutch state became one and the same.

ii.This is different; as mentioned above, in monarchies. (the word 'monarchy' coming from the greek 'mon archos' 'to rule alone') The monarch, because they are sovereign of the state, bears the same arms as the state because the monarch and the state are one and the same. To quote Louis XIV of France; 'l'etat c'est moi'-'I am the state'. This is true in Denmark, Sweden,(although in these countries a lesser form of the royal arms are used-nevertheless they are still the lesser arms of the monarch/state), Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Belgium, Monaco, Tonga, Malaysia, Swaziland, Lesotho, Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan, and all armigerous monarchies both past and present, and as all the commonwealth realms, both now and in the past are exactly the same as them all from a legal point of view; there is no reason why this should not be true for them also.

Regarding the Pope, that is an exception to this rule, as much as is the Vatican City's status as a theocratic, elective monarchy. The popes bore personal arms separate from those of the papal states from the 1200's. If anything, the supposed 'holiness' of the Pope is a reason for this violation; in the same way the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were allowed to 'violate' the heraldic rule of not placing metal upon metal (its arms being argent, a cross pottonee or.) because of the supposed 'holiness' of the city of Jerusalem.

iii.Regarding the UK arms being present in Australian court rooms; from both a constitutional and heraldic point of view, this makes absolutely no sense. Yes, she is Queen of the UK as well as Queen of Australia, but both are completely different offices. That they are held by the same person is irrelevant: constitutionally, it is entirely possible for a so-called 'commonwealth realm' (a term with absolutely no constitutional warrant) to have a monarch who is a different person to that of the UK; (indeed, there is historical precedent: when Edward VIII abdicated from the thrones of the commonwealth realms, The Irish Free State took a day longer to ratify the abdication. Thus, for a period of one day, Edward VIII was king of the Irish Free State whilst his brother, George VI, was King of all the others.)The two nations are just in a personal union, nothing more. It is exactly the same situation as James I of England was in being James VI of Scotland: two separate offices, coincidentally held by the same person. Also,not only are they the arms of the Queen of the UK, they are the arms of the UK itself, which thus implies that the UK itself has some kind of pre-eminence over Australia. The reason for these arms being there is no doubt due to a series republican-minded Australian governments wanting to make a distinction between the government and the Queen herself, which is both completely illegal constitutionally and heraldically. (as Australia has no separate heraldic legislature,-unlike Canada- it is governed heraldically by the College of Arms in London,as are all commonwealth realms.) In conclusion, the prescence of these arms makes as much sense as having the arms of the King of Norway in an Australian Court Room!!!JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg[edit]

The image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

As can be seen from the arms of Anne, Princess Royal, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, ladies who are royal in their own right (as opposed to by marriage) do not impale their arms with those of their husbands. The depiction in this article is doubly wrong because if her arms were impaled (which they are not), the husband's arms would be on the dexter side not the sinister one. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the husband display his wife's arms on an inescutcheon? Or would he not because Royal Arms are not heritable? Opera hat (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe their arms would be displayed in two shields side by side, each with its respective supporters (if any), sharing a "gas-bracket" compartment. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Duke of Lancaster[edit]

The Lancaster flag, as I understand it, belongs to the Duchy of Lancaster (from which article I took the pic and its caption), the monarch's private holding company for investments. Legally there is no Duke of Lancaster. —Tamfang (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. That whole section should be deleted. Legally there is no 'duke of Lancaster', only the 'Duchy of Lancaster'. Calling the sovereign 'Duke of Lancaster' is just a folk custom. E2R never used that flag. Indefatigable (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]