Talk:Heraldry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Heraldry is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 13, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
November 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
February 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Heraldry is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Heraldic Symbolism...[edit]

Hey,

An IP user recently added a link showing the "Generally accepted symbolism of charges" and such. From all of read, there is no generally accepted symbolism and the idea that a charge has a universally accepted meaning holds no water. I think that this ought to be removed as bad heraldry.--Eva db 06:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'dd like to look up the link a bit more, from what I've seen it gives a general symbolism. It is by far no universal sybolism though and the wording following the link should read diffrently. Although there are no universially accepted symbols, I would profess to having seen a general trend appear with many of the symbols. Such as Purpure for sovereignty or another such synonym of leadership. Certain nations and circles of scholars have also had defined meaning for charges, tincture and ordinaries. Yet even should all of Europe deem the lion one thing, this same charge among the Islamic and Oriental nations might not hold same meaning. Therefore it is quite possible to have a general meaning, yet a universal one...Dryzen 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Science of Heraldry[edit]

An editor just removed the fact that heraldry is a science from the opening line. Perhaps I'm not completely sure what makes something a science, but I've always seen heraldry described as such. Any thoughts on whether that should be reverted?--Eva db 05:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The science article notes that "... the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well." I would say that heraldry qualifies under this definition of things.--Eva db 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I concure, we should revert the intorduction. Of course Art is an ancient synonym for science...Dryzen 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the intro since heraldry is a science as defined in Wiktionary: "Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline" --EncycloPetey 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Then again, it's not the wiktionary definition that's wiki-linked to, but the WP one, and while heraldly would just about qualify in the "less formal" sense that's quoted above (i.e., amazingly loose), it's in no way a science in the main sense of that article. It would be much preferable not to have this link, and to characterise this as a frequent description of heraldry, rather than as if it were an objective fact. Alai 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the definition given in the lead of the WP article more than adequately covers heraldry. In my personal opinion, it should stay because it is a systematic study of coats of arms.--Eva db 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The defintion of science given at the WP article is: "Science refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research." Heraldry fits into this how exactly? You might be able to claim that it fits under the much broader definition mentioned above but having such a controversial link in the first sentence isn't such a great idea. Recury 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kind of jumping the gun on the revert, aren't you, Recury? The lead paragraph of the science article states, "Science objective/purpose is to explain the human world and to anticipate/foresee its behaviour/processes. The essential for science are hypotheses and research methods." Ignoring the poor wording and flow of the paragraph, I think that heraldic research fits this idea very well. Heraldists look at the evidence from heraldic sources and make hypotheses about the data. They then research to learn more about the human world. I'm unsure how your version of heraldry is so incompatible. Perhaps you would like to tell those involved in the International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences that there is no heraldic science and they've been in the wrong for the last 70+ years. I think it would be best to wait for a consensus from editors before you revert again.--Eva db 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
They seem to have changed the lead from yesterday to today, but you'll notice that they don't spend a lot of time talking about chevrons and charges in the Science article, and there's a good reason for that. However, it's your article and I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over it, so if you want people's first impression of heraldry to be that they have some sort of scientific inferiority complex, that is OK with me. Recury 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed...they don't talk about chevrons and charges in the science article. That's what the heraldry article is for. Perhaps the science article ought to be edited to include heraldry. As it stands right now, it includes Military science, which seems just as much a science to me, as heraldry. Rest assured that this article is not "mine" or anyone else's. I also do not want to get into an edit war. I just want the article to reflect community consensus. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your view of science and wikipedia.--Eva db 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Heraldry is often referred to as "The Gentle Science". Perhaps starting with that phrase would make Recury more comfortable. As a physics teacher, I am not offended by calling Heraldry a science. It involved plenty of research, observation, and language experimentation, to get where we are today. —Leesonma 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Heraldic Featured Article[edit]

Hello all. I just want to say that Elias Ashmole will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 2006-06-04. This man is more known for his other endeavors, but it may help to pique an interest in heraldry if we beef up the heraldic content of the article before that date. Just an idea I had.--Eva db 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of 'compartment'?[edit]

Tere seems to be no mention of this except in one image and in the list of the Heraldry series. Anyone care to expand? Jameshfisher 12:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rights and Wrongs[edit]

Sounds like it was written by a lawyer. It's message is important, but not clear at all. It's mention of Scotland is critical, but it should be mentioned that countries like the US have NO authoritative body, plus we have a very different view of the current purpose of heraldry. Hanging a shield in a U.S. home is very similar to hanging a picture of grandma, or George Washington. It's not something to be claimed, or bragged about. It is simply a representation of where we come from. This is not at all the Brit view, or law. I think "Rights and Wrongs" is an excellent addition to the article, but needs to be expanded. —Leesonma 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Couché[edit]

We don't seem to have any mention of those arms that have their shield displayed couché (tilted, as though used by a knight on horseback). Perhaps someone can give a good explanation of it's rise and seeming fall - in the UK - other than in Scotland. Alci12 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Charges: TMI[edit]

I'm hoping to stir up some debate on the proper scope of Charge (heraldry). Come on over to Talk:Charge (heraldry)#Too much.... —Tamfang 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture Peer Review[edit]

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Pursuivant--Dave Boven 07:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little again...[edit]

The heraldic legend JBL is a FAC...again! If you think think that the article deserves this distinction, voice support here.--Forlornandshorn 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry is also a FAC. Comments here please. Gimmetrow 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Nunavut[edit]

Could someone take a look here and say which is the correct term, "inflamed" or "enflamed"? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Good question! My sources say that "enflamed" means flaming, and "inflamed" means in flames. I would say that the qulliq in this case would be enflamed, but I think it's open to interpretation and could easily go either way. So, there's a nice ambiguous answer for you!--Dave Boven 14:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
And that's what I came up with. So I didn't change it. I did see one thing that said inflamed was "represented as burning or as adorned with tounges of flame" and that enflamed was just a variant on it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

I was reviewing this for Version 0.5, and I'd like to pass the article, but one problem is the lack of official references (i.e., sources for the article, not just background reading). Presumably some of the extensive suggested readings and external links were used for writing the article - if so, could you move those into a references section? This would also help with things like GA or FA nomination. This is an important topic, and so it needs doing right. Thanks, Walkerma 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use?[edit]

I can't figure out if use of French coats of arms are considered fair use. I also wanta know if taking the image from this site http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jean-claude.colrat/2brosse.htm would be considered fair use. Does anyone have an answer? --YankeeDoodle14 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The coat itself is not subject to copyright (being too old, for one thing) but a particular representation of it, such as a drawing or photograph, may be. To be safe, re-draw it. —Tamfang 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok,thank you. --YankeeDoodle14 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

French-speaking blazon project[edit]

The French-speaking blazon project has been entirely revised, the creation of blazons is now vectorial. A start guide for newcomers has been created and many new charges, ordinaries and surrounding elements have enriched the already existing base, in order to give to the most what is necessary for a simplified creation of free blazons. Thus, don't hesitate to participate, you'll see it's easy and fun to do. What we particularly need is draftsmen for charges creating. See more details on the welcome page of the project. Amically, the French-speaking blazon project team.

Heraldry origins[edit]

Am I right or wrong in assuming that heraldry has it's origins in England? 86.133.72.79 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say you're right and wrong. Heraldry began all across western Europe at the same time. It was rather remarkable (from what I've read). Beryl Platts argues that the Flemish companians of William the Conquerer brought the traditions of heraldry to England in their banners and flags. So I would say that it has its origins in England, but that it was beginning at the same time around the continent.--dave-- 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That is interesting. One intuits personal trademarks to have been around forever - but was there a specific technology that caused them to simultaneously flourish (eg. fabrics, paints, metal working), or perhaps hereditary aristocracy becoming more systematically entrenched? Sandwich Eater 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm no expert. From what I've read, the crusades played a large part in getting everyone in Western Europe on the same page heraldically. The Flemish version brought over with William was a kind of proto-heraldry, but as Christendom began fighting for the Holy Land and folks got into contact with eachother, they developed this more systematic heraldic practice and brought it back home to their countries with them.--dave-- 20:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it might be an interesting question to ask (not least because I would like to know myself and am no expert of this field). But the Origins section of this article seems to indirectly indicate that heraldry has English origins. Would it be objectionable if I was to assume this? I'm currently working on improving some of the (very poor) English related pages (England, Culture of England etc) and thought I would be able to confirm if heraldry is an English stylistic device. 86.133.72.79 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This might be a difficult question to answer as it seems haraldry evolved more or less simultaniously many places in Europe. If you want to state that heraldry first appeared or originated in England you would have to find a good source for it and expect to be challenged almost every time a heraldry enthousiast from another country passes by. In Norway the bumerke could be said to be a forefather of heraldry (but more research is needed). I don't know how long heraldry has been in use in Japan, but they seem to have a heraldic system based on their own traditions and given the age of that culture I assume heraldry is very ainchent there as well. And the statement above saying that the Flemish companians of William the Conquerer brought the traditions of heraldry to England seems to say quite clearly that heraldry did not originate in England. England is however a very important country for heraldry and a place were heraldry has been developed and were heraldic traditions have been kept strong to present day. The English heraldic tradition has also been spread to many parts of the world with the British empire so it is IMO a prominent one. Inge 08:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This article from Britannica describes the origins of heraldry more precicely.Inge 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link that's a cool article. Sandwich Eater 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry from further East[edit]

Might the article be expanded to include heraldic or proto-heraldic developments in the Arab dominated Caliphate? There are at least two extant works on this topic already: Leaf & Purcell's 'Islamic Heraldry' and Mayer's 'Saracenic Heraldry'. Of course if one speaks of "Muslim heraldry", this would have to include heraldry from many more diverse sources: Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, India during the Raj, Egypt influenced by France, Ottomans influenced by Europe, ethnic Russians, etc.. Or maybe a separate article is warranted?

Kneeslasher 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Muslim heraldry would definitely warrant a separate article along the lines of Scottish heraldry and Ecclesiastical heraldry. In addition to that, it might be nice to include some of that information in the main article. I know nothing of them, though, so if you have those resources you should go ahead and do it.--Eva bd 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Muslim heraldry (if the word even applies) is at most only tenuously related to that of Western Christendom, I'd say it belongs in a separate article entirely. If restricting Heraldry to European heraldry is then deemed parochial, we can rename it and make a disambiguation page: The word heraldry has been applied to several largely unrelated systems including European heraldry, Muslim heraldry, Japanese mon ...Tamfang 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Even the search term "Muslim Heraldry" needs disambiguation. The status of "Arab" or, as Mayer prefers, "Saracenic" heraldry as heraldry can be discussed, but the "Heraldry of Muslims" is a different issue entirely. The first deals with the Heraldry of the Caliphate (which only became Eurpeanised very late), whilst the latter represents heraldry as used by Muslims wherever they've been, Caliphate or not. Since some Muslim populations have lived in "heraldry proper" countries for centuries (see list above), an article on "Saracenic Heraldry" would thus be but a subset of a larger work on "The Heraldry of Muslims". What think you? My preference, once I've done more reading on the topic, is to create, in due course, a "Heraldry of Muslims" article of which one section would be "Heraldry of the Caliphate". There is some extremely informative discussion occurring on the AHS forums regarding coats of arms held by Muslims (Egypt) which are undoubtedly in the European style.

Kneeslasher 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Swastika or sauwastika?[edit]

"Coat of arms of the Boreyko family of Poland, uses a swastika in its design." Should this not be sauwastika?--ML5 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold Rewrite...[edit]

Greetings Fellow Heraldists, As has been noted, the heraldry article has been getting longer and longer over time. At the same time it has been getting more and more disjointed. I've decided to be bold and make a massive revision and reorganization of the article. I think that I've trimmed off some excess things and added some citations and references. Hopefully, this will be a good start toward making heraldry a Featured Article. Feel free to change any or all of my revisions, but I hope it helps.--dave-- 04:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I read over your bold rewrite. I think it is a good attempt but I also think this article is really struggling in comparison to the versions in Brittanica and elsewhere. This may be an example of where the wiki system struggles. The rules of heraldry are a moving target - they change from nation-to-nation, they quickly evolve from 1066 to 1800. It is difficult to write a generalization regarding the rules et cetera. When you say "priests often refrain from helmets" for example, I tend to disagree. You do not know the frequency of arms granted to priests around the world or what percentage of them refrained from using a helm. In the previous article, I had a specific example of arms, granted by parliament in England, that had a helm for a priest. The web is rife with such "rules" or outright abuses of the use of arms attributed to a specific nation, like England or Scotland, but with obvious conflict with the practice and rules there.
I think a better article would really elaborate more on the history of heraldry. It would provide the example of Henry the VIII sending heralds out to characterize the activity in the 16th century, at which point rules started to become formalized in that nation. It would be really interesting to see how and when trademark law and heraldry diverged (if they were ever joined). The next section would attempt to define Heraldry given the historical context. That section would point out that the rules are and were ever changing and specific to nations and heraldic orders. The section would point out that only generalities and common themes can be discussed in an international article describing all of heraldry.
After all that is done, I think the rest of the article would need softening around some of the statements. Instead of "Clergy often do not use the helm" or "women often use a lozenge", I propose that language like "Many prominent examples from clergy do not use a shield, but substitute various religious headgear", "Many arms of prominent female aristocracy use a lozenge rather than a shield to avoid miltaristic themes. Or put those examples in an "alternative forms" section saying something like, "in some cases, the basic shape of armes were modified to mirror occupation or outlook. Examlpes include the arms of some prominent clergy and female aristocracy who avoided the use of a helm and shield which they may have perceived as militaristic or masculine forms."
I think that innacuracies are seen and people respond to them, that makes the article conitnually expand in what can be a disjointed way. By properly contextualizing the diverse nature of the topic with good history, and then acknowleging the generalzations for what they are, I think people would be less inclined to add corrections all over the article. JMHO Sandwich Eater 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input on the rewrite. Your critique is spot-on. You mention that this article falls far short of Britanica. I haven't looked at that article in a long time. Does it discuss mostly Britanno-centric heraldry? If it does, then I'm not sure what else to do. Your explanation for the disjointedness of the article makes perfect sense, as well. I tried not to make too many sweeping generalizations in the re-write. As you mention, there are myriad different heraldic traditions the world over, and we can't cover them all. If we change the focus of the article to heraldic history, then we'll just end up with disjointed sections based on the history of different nations. I think that is better served by the Heraldry by Country category. Hopefully we can get this thing closer to a FA with your suggestions.--dave-- 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Much, much, much better. This provides a lot more unification to the article. The new inline referenes are great too. Their are definitely some improvements to be made, but I think you've done a great job dave--.--Forlornandshorn 21:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Its hard to say which things should be included here and which in the "heraldry by country category?" I think this is a nice start. Good work.Reddyrov

A or An, that is the question[edit]

Is there a wikipedia policy on using "a" or "an" before the word heraldic. In general, I would say that I painting is a heraldic masterpiece, but I've seen people write that something is an heraldic gem. Is this a difference between British and American usage, or am I just weird?--dave-- 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In some "educated" registers of British English it is or was customary to treat words beginning with "h" whose main stress is on the second syllable as beginning with a vowel, and (somewhat influenced by French pronunciation) to minimise or drop the spoken "h" sound; thus for example, "a hedge" and "a halibut" but "an hotel (pronounced "an 'otēl")." This is of course distinct from the typical London-area "uneducated" accent that drops all initial "h's" ("'Ere, 'Arry, can yer lend us an 'arf-crawn?")! (For the record, these are the two spoken registers I myself tend to alternate between, although I favour the latter in writing.)
Since stress can shift between syllables according to the particular form of a word, the use of 'a' and 'an' correspondingly changes; hence "a Herald" but "an heraldic device." This dialectical variation probably now seems a little old-fashioned and "mannered" to most people even in Britain, but so too does Heraldry itself, and some of those who, like myself, delight in Heraldry also enjoy maintaining such slightly old-fashioned verbal usages. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, that means correct only if that's the existing consensus in an article, like Br/Am English. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that we generally tend toward British English conventions in heraldry-related articles, just like we tend to use American conventions in, say, Barack Obama. I would tend to permit the "an heraldic/an historic" form, but also "a herald/a history" as described above. BTW, this is a convention that could perhaps be considered "chiefly British", but I have observed it in American usage as well, though relatively uncommon there. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
England-related heraldry articles might fall under the standard "BrEng is probably better here"; with the others it's the page consensus. Completely changing the style of an article from Br-->Am or vice-versa requires a good reason, and in European-heraldry contexts, I don't think it exists.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand the question? I don't mean to advocate changing an article that consistently uses American English to British English. But when writing a new article or editing an article with inconsistent usage, I generally use British English. If an article already uses American English, I too would defer to the existing consensus. I thought the original poster was asking about any preference that might hold sway in situations where no clear consensus exists. But I could be wrong, and that was nearly three years ago anyway. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No disagreement, I was more guiding the now-theoretical questioner than anything else. I can't really comment on if no such consensus exists, since I am British, and use that almost all the time with new articles anyway - not that I write about many American subjects. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Right on. Being an American, I sometimes wonder if my British spelling/usage is truly consistent when I do use it. I generally tend to use American English when writing on most subjects, but even heraldry in the US is so conservative of its British roots that I tend to think of heraldry generally as a "use British English" topic. The extent of my British usage in heraldry-related articles is generally limited to "colour", "honourable" and "armour" though (but "coat armory", as in Fox-Davies' Guide). Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Heraldry-Way too general[edit]

I am terribly sorry but the Eastern Heraldry section is way to general and thus incorrect. Croatian and Serbian heraldry are more based on German heraldry. Hungarian heraldry started to become a system of emblems that distanced itself gradually from the original symbols. [1]. The development of regional heraldry in Easter Europe is different per country and I think it would be wise to be more detailed about this. Some other info now that I am mentioning this. Croatia e.g. in the south has the region of Dalmatia. It was both under Austrian and Venetian rule and followed their protocol, simply consult Siebmachers to see this.

Hope this helps

--SGS-- 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this is not terribly helpful. It would be much better if you find the relevant sources, cite them, and edit the article. As it stands presently, the section is cited with sources that back them up. If you have other sources that can make the article better, please use them.--Eva bd 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I mean this in the nicest way. A lot of books on the source list are not really "sources", they are work based on older original sources and I feel those should be quoted a not these books. But you asked for sources so here they are:

  • SIEBMACHER´S GROSSES WAPPENBUCH, Bd. 28; Der Adel in Kärnten, Krain und Dalmatien
  • SIEBMACHER´S GROSSES WAPPENBUCH, Bd. 34; Der Adel von Siebenbürgen
  • Grundsätze der Wappenkunst verbunden mit einem Handbuch der heraldischen Terminologie; Gritzner, Maximilian;

--SGS-- 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your comment about the sources cited. Again, if you have sources that you think are more accurate, it might be nice for you to update them. We're all trying to make this article as great as possible and if you can do so, we'd be thrilled. Thanks for the sources listed here, as well. Now get to work and add them into the article. It doesn't do much good for you to keep this discussion here when you can incorporate your information into the article.--Eva bd 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange wording[edit]

"Today, heraldry has ceased to be an expression of aristocracy throughout the world and is simply a form of identification"

This is cited but seems on the face of it false or confused. I doubt anyone uses heraldry today for 'identification' in the strict sense of the word. Heraldry was by no means inherantly aristocratic it varied so much from country to country; you see arms for woodcutters, farriers and blacksmiths in various European countries. It's doubtless true that heraldry is far less regulated now and that more people have an interest and perhaps assume arms than was previously the case but I doubt we can be more categoric than that. It's hard to put such things into numbers but it's still probably the case that most people with arms inherited them from the 'aristocratic' past (not that I like that usage) rather than being new. Alci12 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As you mentioned, it is hard to put such thing into numbers, but I would say that the opposite is true for your last point. Of those that use inherited arms today, the great many of them are probably inherited "burgher arms." Those of aristocratic an noble stock are probably far outnumbered by those everyday people that just assumed arm. Those that use the arms of the old nobility today have most likely been mislead by an heraldic bucket shop. They probably haven't done the genealogical work necessary to prove their right to arms by descent. All that being said, I'm not sure how to make the wording better :) --Eva bd 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on how you define assumed. I'm doubtful the number of people who actively assume arms is that large - buying a trinket with arms supposedly of your name for $2 seems to me not to really amount to assumption. Whereas the SCA people have clearly made a active intent to assumption. I left it as it was as I was struggling to find better wording even though I dislike what's there. Alci12 12:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC?[edit]

It has now been slightly more than a month since the bold rewrite by Boven. This article seems to have reached a fairly stable point. Most of the recent changes were made in minor details and typographical errors. The main points of contention in the last FAC nomination have been addressed (lead and last few sections). Is it time to re-list this article as an FAC? I know that a couple of points have been raised on the talk page, but no one has come forward to change the thing. I'm thinking of giving it another go in the next couple of days unless someone has any pressing concerns that may keep it from passing.--Eva bd 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I still feel the origins and history section is a bit light - the article doesn't really say much about how heraldry was used, it is mostly about the rules for designing/describing coats of arms. The French and German articles (with the help of Google Translate) have a lot of stuff that this article doesn't. (Indeed the French article, which is an FA has only three paragraphs on the rules of heraldry). I guess my objections come under the 'comprehensiveness' criterion for FA. The ideal would seem to me to be that this article would be extended in terms of the origin/history/uses of heraldry (and the role of heralds should also get a mention), and the nice rules of heraldry section moved to coat of arms (oh, and lots of Heraldry by country articles written :). I realise however that this would take a lot of work; unfortunately I am very busy at the moment so I'm not able to undertake it. Dr pda 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the good Doctor. A more comprehensive general summary of the origins would be nice. It might be possible, though, to make this article more about what heraldry is an how it is used and then have a History of Heraldry article. Either way, this still needs more work.--dave-- 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Far Eastern Heraldry[edit]

I'm pretty unschooled in matters heraldic [my major exposure was in the SCA many years ago, where I served as a herald myself], but it seems we're missing a huge slab of the subject by ignoring the Far East.

Japanese medieval families had banners, seals, and other items associated with matters heraldic. Should this not be addressed here?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be addressed, at least in brief, with a link to the main article at Mon (badge). --EncycloPetey 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Button[edit]

Can anybody identify or even describe the right hand side of [2] this button please? - Kittybrewster 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's something like colour a chevron colour2 between three fleur de lis colour3 on a chief colour4 three roundels colour5. Alci12 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
... or trefoils. —Tamfang 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blazon of Arms[edit]

Maybe some examples of a Blazon of Arms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.52.111 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

There are some nice examples of blazon at blazon, which IMHO is the better place for them. --Wayne Miller 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shield shape[edit]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Does_the_specific_shield_shape_of_e.g._US_highways_have_a_name.3F - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some pictures[edit]

I have uploaded some historical images, maybe some of them will be useful here too:

M.K. 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this to illustrate the exceptional number of crests possible from some states shown on a thaler I purchased solely for that reason; it is the one whose mention I made on the main Heraldry page.

Talshiarr (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

US versus Commonwealth spelling systems[edit]

So, do we use the spelling system of the US in this article, or the spelling system of the Commonwealth?

For my part, I suggest that since most organised heraldry in the English-speaking world happens within the Commonwealth (since Canada, Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, and South Africa all have organised national heraldic systems, whereas the US only has the relatively small and specialised United States Army Institute of Heraldry), we adopt the Commonwealth spellings. WP:MOS says: "For example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa." Marnanel 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your views Marnanel. The "...it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa." argument holds absolutely no water. This is not a British topic in anyway, it is a European topic. Just because the US has no official heraldic authority, that makes its heraldry no less valid than Britain's. Switzerland, France, etc., etc. have no heraldic authority and I think few would argue that their heraldry is worth less than Britain's. Going back to MOS, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." I think that's our case here and it seems that our article is mostly in American English so it ought to stay as such. Agreed?--Eva bd 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this involve any words other than "color" vs. "colour"? Perhaps the article should use "tincture"? Gimmetrow 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The situation is a bit muddled in the article. There are times when colour is used (incorrectly, I think) to refer to all tinctures. There are also times when it is used in reference to the subset of tinctures that are different than metals. I think that correctly, colors and metals should be subsets of tinctures. Even when this is straightened out in the article, there should be at least an instance or two of the word. I did a quick skim and no other British/American spellings jumped out at me, but I may have missed them.--Eva bd 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"This is not a British topic in anyway, it is a European topic. Just because the US has no official heraldic authority, that makes its heraldry no less valid than Britain's." That's funny; Britain's "in" Europe - plus the fact that Britain existed and used Heraldry long before the United States of tax evaders ;) means that Heraldry has far more ties to the nation(s) of Britain than the other Anglospheric countries. Also, the AUTHORITY argument also still makes sence - if the US has no OFFICIAL authority on heraldry, then it isn't treated with the same respect in the US as Europe / the Commonwealth as it has NO OFFICIAL representation there. --Kurtle (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care strongly one way or another. I'm a "Yank" but it seems to me that heraldic tradition is stronger in places without the benefit of Noah Webster's reforms. —Tamfang 04:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
i would recommend Old French instead... :) heraldry stuff are actually renders of french words ("Héraut" >> "Herald", "Officier d'armes" >> "Officer of arms", Heraldry >> Héraldique -"-ry" indicates the Old French could be something like "Heraldrie"- ). back in 1066 Guillaume Le Conquérant's Normans spoke french as you know. i see no etymology in these articles yet. Paris By Night 13:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with Evadb? Spelling is the least important thing, as long as it is correct. The US doesn't recognize arms, this makes it less valid, than something recognized by a government. Whereas the Commonwealth does use arms. If someone wants to change the spelling, I don't see why not. please cite any objections from the relative Wikipedia policy. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Danish illustration[edit]

This danish coat of arms illustrates the crests difference to the main charges.

Pdambaek, can you paraphrase that? Does it mean "This illustrates that the crest need not repeat the charge of the shield", or "This crest has a mark of difference for cadency"? —Tamfang 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Neutrality[edit]

It appears there is some question to the true neutrality when it comes to Religious characters and Heraldry.

Since there are differing opinions as such of the existence of Jesus and no real historical evidence the same stance should be taken in the picture description in the Heraldry page.

Therefor it should be neutral and not a positive confirmation of the possible existence of Jesus. Bootrix2 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on heraldry. Whatever dispute you're referring to goes in another article. Gimmetrow 07:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is an article on heraldry. It isn't a dispute. Replace Jesus with Dragon and you see the obvious. Since Wikipedia is dedicated to logic and since Jesus is only a religious figure with no factual backing the article should take a neutral stance in neither disclaiming or proving the existence of said icons. Bootrix2 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The current article does not disclaim or prove the existence of Jesus, so it meets your criterion. Replace "Jesus" with "King Arthur", and the same situation holds. We don't know for certain there was a historical King Arthur, and the myths about him are generally considered to be elaborated if such a person existed. But if he existed, then we know it was prior to the advent of heraldry. As it is currently written, the article is suitably neutral, and discussion about the existence or nonexistence of Jesus as a historical figure in the first century CE can be covered in the article about Jesus. The arguments are not relevant to this article on heraldry.
In any case, it is generally accepted by scholars that someone named Jesus existed as a historical figure, so forcing in ambiuous language in this article to call his existence into question would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV, since that is a fringe minority view. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I am a bit concerned by the arbitrary removal of all but one external links by User:Gimmetrow. Surely such an action would merit some collective discussion beforehand? --Heraldic (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A list of external links of that length would not make it through FAC. WP:NOT#LINK. Could link to Portal:Heraldry/Web_resources in See also, but having that list in the article makes it look like dmoz. Gimmetrow 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

cadency from institutions?![edit]

In the generation and assumption of new arms, by people who are unable to trace their line back to a recognised armiger, it is common practice to adopt the arms of a person or institution who has contributed to the new armiger's life in some meaningful fashion, and to difference those arms to distinguish the new armorial bearing from the inspiring original.

I find this assertion a bit weird; the example shown – personal arms consisting of an institution's arms with the charge's tincture changed – is perhaps unique in my experience, though the opposite (civic arms incorporating arms of historic local families) is as common as dirt. One would think that this Wilkins founded the Australian School of Armour; is that the case?

It is common for new personal arms to incorporate charges and tinctures that allude to some institution, but indirectly enough to avoid the appearance of cadency. —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Further I suspect this is some user's personal arms that they've managed to worm into this article. By admission it is "computer generated", and hardly of the standard of other examples. Further I can find no reference at all to this 'Wilkins' aside from mirrors of this article. I've nothing against people designing their own arms, but shoe-horning them into articles on heraldry is beyond the pale. Removed. Phunting (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Country Category[edit]

Some of the "Heraldry by Country" categories link to two categorys (eg Swiss Heraldry category to Categories "Swiss Culture" and "History of Switzerland". Others do not eg the "Scottish Heraldry" category does not link to any category for Scotland, so will link the category as for Swiss etc Hugo999 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm proposing to merge Landscape heraldry into Heraldry, as the topic of "landscape heraldry" is not notable. Some heraldic writers have written a few lines on this passing fad of the Victorian era, but it is not essential to the study of heraldry (except to note that it is normally avoided), and it is not notable to the general reader. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolute support. I read the AfD, and a merger seems best result all round. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - makes sense. //roux   15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, though I'm unsure where to put it; under Modern heraldry (though the fashion has happily declined)? If it's too petty for a separate article, it may also be too petty to mention here if we don't mention other broad stylistic matters such as two-and-one arrangements. —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose there is no reason to add that gallery of "bad heraldry" here. The article should be deleted, since it contains nothing but a one-line definition (which belongs on Wiktionary) and a gallery of images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, but you might see that I recently nominated it for deletion and it failed deletion, so merging (the text) is the next best option. Of course, there's not much there to merge. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In that discussion, only three people commented. The last commenter suggests that Fox-Davies has a "discussion" about this topic, but that is incorrect. The full "discussion" is on pp. 87-88 and consists of (1) a full description of the sole British coat includeing the word "landscape", (2) a quote about German house signs, and (3) one unsourced paragraph which begins about augmentations depicting the sky but concludes with a general statement about heraldic art mirroring contemporary art. There isn't actually any content there that could be used in a landscape heraldry article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, but I can't do anything else about it. I'm not an admin, and I can't just unilaterally delete the article, and now it has survived an AfD discussion (even if the discussion was largely neglected and closed prematurely). If we can at least get consensus to merge a sentence about "landscape heraldry" into the Heraldry article and jettison the unnecessary article, then that may be the best way we can proceed at this point. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yeuch. Kittybrewster 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. That wasn't so painful. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Re-Done. I read this discusiision with some amusement, then found that some former meber of wikipedia had simply undone the redirect by [[User:Wilhelm meis|Wilhelm_meis], which deletion I now corrected. Silliness.TjoeC (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blazon[edit]

How would you call the blazoned shield in a coat of arms? "Shield" or "escutcheon" refers to the shape and not the content, whereas "coat of arms" includes the motto, the crest, the helmet, etc. Would you use the term "blazon shield", or "shield blazon", or another suggestion? Liam D (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the above--and you really should be asking this at the Reference Desk; article talkpages are for discussing the article. → ROUX  20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "Jew" in the introduction[edit]

Currently, the introduction contains the sentence "Even Jew families had got their arms," followed by another one explaining that of the most ancient known Jewish coat of arms. This strikes me as a fairly anti-Semitic comment, both by the usage of the word "Jew" rather than the correct adjective "Jewish," as well as the unqualified assumption that Jewish families could not have coats-of-arms. In any case, I don't think that this belongs in the introduction; I think it should be moved, if kept at all, to a separate section explanation the relationship or lack thereof (if applicable) between Jews and coats-of-arms historically. What are your thoughts on this? Does anyone have more information on this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.185.233 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly right, and the comment has been removed. It had no sourcing anyway, and the implication was offensive. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the un-Englishness of "had got their arms", the adjectival use of "Jew" may well be innocent. Still, agreed, the sentence is out of place at best. —Tamfang (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

temporary (?) image removal[edit]

I have commented out the images depicting tinctures, ordinaries, and divisions of the field. For one, they sandwich the text between them, and if we were to avoid that the images would overwhelm the page by some length. Adding more text does not seem to be much of an option. I think simply removing them will be the best solution, as they are covered in each of the main articles. Alternate suggestion would be to keep only the tinctures and furs, and use a single example each for ordinaries and divisions of the field. → ROUX  09:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One possibility would be to gather them together, either in small groups using {{multiple image}} or into a gallery or galleries at the end of sections using <gallery>...</gallery> tags. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a good solution for these particular images. For one, the article is incredibly image-heavy as it is anyway, for another it would break up the flow of text rather egregiously. It is, of course, what I did with the History section (and I hate how it looks, I just didn't want to remove too much in one go). → ROUX  20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As you will... I tagged it, and I think it's reasonable for an article about heraldry to have a lot of images, provided they are placed according to guidelines, but I've no real experience in the area of heraldry and wouldn't know which images are essential and which are disposable. So I'll leave you and the other regular editors to it... Yworo (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical references[edit]

Referring to the Bible to support the antiquity of Heraldry, you may need to go back to the Hebrew source material to ensure the translation into the English language doesn't lead to "assuming the consequent", if you see what I mean. This would be the easiest translation of a great many Hebrew phrases for the King James translators, but how accurate is it? --TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which phrases are you talking about exactly? 75.232.105.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

talking trumpets[edit]

At the dawn of heraldry in Teutonic lands, a knight on making his entrance would be announced to the assembly by a certain series of musical notes, unique to himself, blown by the herald. These notes, when heard by the educated hearer, described the knight's coat of arms, thus identifying his person.

(This was also recently added to Blazon.) The footnote says this got into the Encyclopædia Britannica, yet I remain skeptical. For one thing, this was long before the invention of trumpet valves, so each horn could blow only a few notes. —Tamfang (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My best etymological dictionaries (Petit Robert for French and American Heritage Dictionary for English) both say the origin of French blason is unknown, implying that philologists reject the tempting derivation from German blasen and thus the accompanying fairytale. —Tamfang (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means it is a folk etymology? also I will note that assuming every trumpet is identical, even with the ability to only produce three notes, an lot of combination could be made. A series of seven notes could produce over 2,000 combinations. It just seems unpractical, plus blazon is French not Germanic. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of Germanic words in French, particularly in warlike matters (e.g. héraut !), so that's not a deal-breaker. — Yesterday I had a peek at the OED2, which points out that blason originally meant the coat-of-arms itself, rather than its description, making the trumpet story even less likely. —Tamfang (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for better element introduction[edit]

In the section "Rules of Heraldry", I'd like an introductory paragraph before the section on shields. This would basically say, "these are the elements we're going to talk about". I'd pull the first line from the shield paragraph ("The focus of modern heraldry is the armorial achievement, or the coat of arms[link]" and use that to lead into the rest of the introduction: " The elements of the coat of arms include the shield, helmet, crest, supporters, mottos, and sometimes additional elements. The shield is typically the largest of these elements, and the element most visible to laymen. The other elements typically surround the shield in a specific manner."

It might be appropriate to also extract from the paragraphs on the helm and crest the portion beginning, "The origins of the layout of the main heraldic elements appear to be as follows" and to include that in this new "upper level" introduction.

Snide-info (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire 1882-1917 (mass replacement)[edit]

On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982

http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F514_500_csupload_20087025.jpg%3Fu%3D3016084680

At the present moment is initiated his replacement to this picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire

THNKS!

Barbe Igor (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I copied this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, a better place for such an announcement. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, colleague!Barbe Igor (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Grenville Diptych of 719 quarterings[edit]

Would it be possible if someone can create an additional article either adding on this article page or creating a new page to list all the 719 quarterings. It would be a great idea to have an article showing the shield with listing all of the 719 quarterings aswell and with the idea that people can work on this article together with detailing who the heiresses were who brought in which quarter of the shield. I have been working on to establish the quarterings on this shield for a few weeks and I would be very happy to contribute to this article should someone set this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbyguy (talkcontribs) 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How about creating User:Corbyguy/Grenville Diptych with what you have so far? —Tamfang (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Central and Eastern European Heraldry[edit]

This lists Polish, Hungarian, Belorussian and Russian Heraldry as all belonging to one group, but there really appears to be no similarity between them. I can find little on any of them, but based the political histories of these nations, Hungary is closer related to the Germany, whereas Belarus has been part of Lithuania and Russia when heraldry was developed, so there is nothing to suggest it has its own unique system. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish and Hungarian heraldry do indeed resemble German (and Austrian) heraldry more than British or French. Their histories are also more closely tied to Germany. The difficulty is exactly what you state: there is very little published (in English or French) about the heraldry of regions east of Germany and Italy, so there isn't much to say in a general article on herladry and the regions of Central and Eastern Europe tend to be lumped together. Germany is sometimes included in definitions of "Central Europe", if that helps. However, heraldry came rather late to Hungary and Poland used heraldry by ródy rather than individually, so lumping these regions together with Germany causes problems in terms of explaining them. Belarus and Lithuania were part of Poland, as well, when Poland was at its height and heraldry came into its own in that nation, so separating Belarus would not make sense. All this is more than needs to be explained in the general heraldry article, but it may help you to understand why the article is partitioned the way it is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian Heraldry[edit]

Italy is left out of Latin heraldry, where does it fit in? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It should probably have its own section, although there will be strong ties to the Normans and the Spanish, who often ruled southern Italy and Sicily during the time when herladry was on the rise. It might be worth a section on "Italy and the Adriatic", since Croatia and Dalmatia often followed Italian heraldic style. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Writers on British Heraldry[edit]

Why make such a section separate from the main bibliography section? Why here rather than in, say, English heraldry? —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

big gap on non-british heraldry[edit]

While British heraldry is not covered perfectly, everything else misses so much. It seems like some things are assumed to apply every where. For example, it is said only one person can own a coat of arms, yet I find it hard to find a German or Scandinavian Coat of arms that is differenced in the way British arms are.In some cases I find no children with the same shield, and in others I can not find a separate coat for the heirs at all. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

origins[edit]

too much space is spent on stuff that isn't really heraldry. Heraldry is more than using symbols to distinguish factions and individuals in battle. the real beginning of heraldry is when it started to be hereditary and regulated. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. → ROUX  18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

inheritance[edit]

inheritance of coat of arms seems to line up with other rules of inheritance. for example, in Britain there is only were title holder and one armiger per grant, and in Germany both titles and arms can be common property. the only difference is that in england arms can be common property, in situations where titles go in abeyance. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, arms cannot be common property. One person, one coat. Apart from the one stellar counterexample (azure a bend Or), it is never permitted for two (or more) people to use the same arms. → ROUX  18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Except in Poland, where a single coat was shared by all the members of a ród. New members of the ród could be informally adopted by allegiance, and members of a single family could belong to different ródy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Except that Poland is a red herring, as Tinynanobots mentioned England specifically. → ROUX  22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
He didn't mention England only; he mentioned Germany as well. His comment was not strictly about England, but included a broader perspective. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There are days when I feel like I am the only person capable of reading on Wikipedia. Quote: the only difference is that in england arms can be common property. That is what I was responding to. Sigh. → ROUX  22:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
And you rsponded with Quote: it is never permitted for two (or more) people to use the same arms. I responded to that statement in the original context of inheritance (see thread title). You did not specify whether you were responding to the comment about common propoerty in England or common property in Germany, or just common property in general. All three are possible interpretations of your comment. What is unclear to you about that? Why the personal attacks? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Should have been perfectly clear I was speaking of England with the mention of azure a bend Or. → ROUX  01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Arms in England can be common property, see heraldic heiress. If a person was given a peerage, and a grant of arms, both would be inherited the same way. Except the situation that would result in a title going into abeyance, results with multiple people with the same arms. In practice English armigers, don't differentiate as much as they should. Of course that may be that the main reason for a lack of differencing in some countries, lack of regulation. Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am afraid you are quite wrong. An heraldic heiress is not evidence that arms can be common property; it is evidence that arms can be inherited by someone not otherwise eligible, under certain circumstances. Multiple people cannot, under UK heraldic law, bear the same arms (again, Azure a bend Or is the notable counterexample which proves the rule). I don't know where or how you have been so misinformed, but it is regrettable. → ROUX  14:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic heiress doesn't mention the point that Tiny must have had in mind: in England, sisters (other than royalty!) bear and transmit the same arms, by the same principle that leads to abeyance of peerages. —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

There is currently a RFC on Coat of arms of the Netherlands. All are welcome to comment. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

re 47 inheritance[edit]

heraldic «inheritance» concepts do not apply outside the Anglosphere. — On the Continent (aka Europe), even in the monarchies, one acquires their Coat of Arms (or compartment) usually exactly as their surname: at birth. SR-7v (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin heraldry?[edit]

Heraldry has little or nothing to do with the spoken word. It is a visual, not verbal form of representation. An accurate approach to heraldry would refer to the traditions, visual characteristics and customs of heraldry, rather than look for extraneous justifications and then try and balance it all out with 'culturally-oriented' subsections to make it "PC". How exactly is Portuguese and Spanish 'Latin'? And by that token why isn't Italian, French and all other Romance languages included? Utten nonsense.

'Latin heraldry': this section tells us three things: 1) there is such as thing as Latin heraldry which includes Portugal and Spain; 2) Latin heraldry is characterised by the absence of crests; 3) Latin heraldry is characterised by extreme examples of marshalling. Was the original writer implying that they are all mongrels perhaps? Everything in that section is wrong. And I can scarcely find the words to approach it.

Fact: virtually all coats of arms historical and modern in Portugal and Spain have crests, which are not only amply depicted in the standard heraldic treatises, but are also accompanied by the corresponding heraldic description. Clearly, but clearly, whoever wrote this hasn't the slightest understanding of heraldry in Spain or Portugal. The sources brought forth to justify such ignorance are, inevitably, by English and German authors who have no command of Portuguese or Spanish and have never read a single primary source in any of those languages. No serious Portuguese or Spanish herald would ever rely or even look for German or English sources to learn their own heraldry. The whole thing is simply ridiculous.

And after the English example of marshalling shown in the article itself, how can anyone claim anything more extreme than that? There is nothing like that in Spanish or Portuguese heraldry. So this is really utter nonsense. I would suggest the entire section is removed. And in fact the whole entry for heraldry should be restructured. Apart from the fact that the arms are different, there is no major difference between Portuguese, Spanish, or French, or Italian heraldry, or anything like that. The absurdity of it all can be seen with any obvious example, e.g. the current coat of arms of Finland is gules a lion or, and the coar of arms of Simon de Montfort was gules a lion argent. So? So, nationality has nothing to do with it. Why on Earth should anyone refer to nationality, which is a modern concept, to explain away heraldry, whose origins are medieval?

There is only good heraldry and bad heraldry. There are traditional depictions and traditional descriptions, and they have a history to them. There are different shields, adopted and used in time according to custom and later according to fashion, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There is a visual culture, with its nuances and greater or lesser emphases throughout history, which is by the way shared throughout Europe.

A marquis's coronet in France is the same as in Portugal or Spain. A fifteenth-century shield is the same whether in Portugal or the Holy Roman Empire. Note to the wise: there was no Germany until the nineteenth-century, and neither was there an Italy until then!

What there is -- and I suspect that that may be the main underlying problem -- is the difference that separates Continental heraldry from British heraldy. And British heraldry is ostensively different from everything else, and everyone else, on a number of counts: the shield, its use and shape, the coronets -- which are entirely different -- the use of supporters, and, o yes, the extraordinary use of marshalling as per the very example given in this article, which is by the way an expression of antiquity and noble birth.

Simply, there should be after the main article, an important section on shields and its historical usage, namely the round shield, the rectangular shield, and so forth. And then there should be a large section for Continental heraldry in Europe. After which, one could then add a justifiably shorter section for British heraldry, which is evidently different from everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.74.192 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)