Talk:Heraldry

Lozenge

I see the lozenge described as "usually a square standing on one of its corners." This isn't entirely corect, is it, as a lozenge rarely has four right angles? I believe the geometric term is a rhombus. Eixo 03:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tinctures

Argent, Gules, etc -- can these be any more than stubs? -- Tarquin 18:10 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think so. Move to redirect. -Martin

They really could, but this would be getting into an incredibly specialised level of detail (for example: 1)argent: Fox-Davies in his book goes on and on as to whether there is a separate colour white, the use of aluminium versus silver when it is emblazoned and so forth; 2)gules: shades, such as the once-fashionable "chocolate" of the arms of Newfoundland, &c.). So the redirects may be best, at least until there is someone who wants to bite into this excruciating task. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:21, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Skin Tinctured

The description of carnation could with some justification be called racist, but there may be some question remaining as to the edit to describe it as "Caucasian," as this POV postdates the time of the "description," and is outside its place, considerably; that is, at the time of the development of this tincture it would have been described as "human flesh" and the racist exclusion of non-European shades of skin would not have been considered. I am not convinced this has been dealt with adequate subtlety. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, whether or not they thought in terms of "human skin" or "Caucasian skin," the latter is in fact what it is, not the former. They never used carnation to mean brown. We can say "Carnation was used to mean the colour of Caucasian skin," just as we would say "Savage was used to blazon the figure of a North American aboriginal." - Montréalais 18:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good -- this is what I was getting at. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Furs

Is potent frequent enough that it's worth mentioning explicitly in this overview, as well as at tincture (heraldry)#Vair and its variants? —Tamfang 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it often enough that it's probably worth mentioning on the tincture page as a variant of vair, but most of the discussion should probably be done on the vair page rather than on the general heraldry or tincture pages. --EncycloPetey 08:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thatcher a Lady ?

Emsworth: You've changed my Baroness Thatcher to your Lady Thatcher. I know a life peeress can choose which style to be called by, but is there any list of life peeresses showing their choice? As an aside, there is only one "Lady" in the House of Peers, Saltoun of Abernethy, Chief of the Clan Fraser. But is she a Lady of Parliament or a Lord of Parliament? garryq 22:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The title Baroness is often used to emphasize that the holder is not e.g. the wife of a knight. But in Scotland the title of Baron(ess) has nothing to do with Parliament – there Lord or Lady is the formal title of the lowest rank of the peerage – and so it would be improper to refer to the holder of a Scottish (pre-1707) peerage as Baron(ess). Lady Saltoun is one of the 90 hereditary peers elected to sit in the HoL. If she were to receive a life peerage, she'd be Baroness Fraser of Somewhere but most likely would still be customarily called by her older title. —Tamfang 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher joint achievement

I thought husbands' arms were always placed on the dexter side. Donald, 00.25, 14 Jun 2004 (BST)

In the case of a joint acheivement you are correct, but I have simply placed the two images side by side for comparison. The arms of the baronets Thatcher have no supporters, unlike Lady Thatcher. Thus a truly joint achievement is subject to further considerations. --garryq 11:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[1] is probably the best article on the Kings of Arms' ruling on how women should now display arms. --garryq 10:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Helm error?

The bit about "helm" says "it rests on either the shield or the helm.", which doesn't make sense to me (how can something rest on itself?) -- is this a mistake? pm215 00:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly resolved Kittybrewster 08:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D D Ruddy - The second chief

I deleted the reference to the arms of Ruddy as an illustration of the second chief because

The arms shown on site conform neither to blazon as given on site nor to the blazon and illustration given in the members' roll of the Royal Society of Heraldry of Canada.
The apparent second chief seems to be a self-assumed pretence relating to one of the many resurrections of the self-styled Order of St Lazarus.
Links on own web page obsolete.

I have tried to contact the armiger, but have had no reply. --garryq 10:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Announcements

Over the next little while, I'm going to be breaking this article up into pieces to provide a more accurate treatment of each one. - Montréalais 18:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Should mention lozenge as means of displaying arms of unmarried woman. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Where should the subject of abatements and the associated charges be dealt with? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:50, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about a separate article on heraldic myths and misconceptions? —Tamfang 06:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Blazons" section would be much better if it actually had pictures showing the blazons being described. Nandesuka 11:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could scan something from Fox-Davies; is 1904 old enough to be sure it's out of copyright? —Tamfang 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move some info to Charges?

A lot of the info now here has been duplicated in the quite extensively developed Charge (heraldry) article. Should it be removed from here where it can be so merged? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bias

This article is heavily biased toward British heraldry, or rather portrays specifically British rules as universal. For instance, in Europe except for Great Britain, women bear their arms on an oval and not a lozange. An other example is "Peers of the realm, senior members of British orders of knighthood and some corporate bodies have supporters on either side of the shield." While that may be the case in Great Britain, in the rest of the world anyone can choose to have supporters on the sides of the shield.

Also, the article neglects to mention what might be the most important addition to the shield, which is the crown, which indicates the bearer's nobiliary rank (Baron/Earl/Marquess/Duke/Prince...), but also ecclesiastic rank (bishop/archbishop) ; cities also have a specific towered crown, etc. While supporters and other additions are not shown with the shield for a simple display (on a ring or seal), the crown always is.

LeoDV 16:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It strikes me as hyperbole to say the coronet is always displayed with the shield. —Tamfang 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules in England are different from those in Scotland Kittybrewster 08:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on that? —Tamfang 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1 - in Scotland the motto is above the crest, in England it is below the shield.

Example 2 - the law in Scotland is fiercely enforced by the Procurator Fiscal to the Court of the Lord Lyon

Example 3 - the marks of cadency are strictly adhered to in Scotland; in England they can be agreed amongst a family whereas in Scotland the Lord Lyon must resolve them.

Kittybrewster 20:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions the different motto positions.

I suggest that a passage about regulation go under "Modern heraldry"

—Tamfang 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed arms

Where in this or another article should this phenomenon be mentioned? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! Go write List of attributed coats of arms and I'll write a section here to link to it. ;) —Tamfang 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNBC's arms

I'm not sure why the University of Northern BC's arms are specifically footnoted as an example of arms which could only be drawn in one particular way. Is this because the salmon are drawn in a Haida style, rather than the usual style used in European heraldry or in a realistic style? If so, perhaps the note should be clarified. Silly Dan 04:25, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

I second that - it's puzzled me too. Berek 12:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hear, Hear.--E va ^db 06:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I move that the footnote be removed? Any supporters? Berek 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the footnote. It's poorly formatted and difficult to find where it comes from in the text. Aside from that, I think that it is just plain wrong.--E va ^db 09:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who found the note confusing over a year ago when I had a different username, I agree. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Achievement of arms"

The phrase now redirects here, following up WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist. Should there be a more specific formal definition? ("Achievement" does appear in the opening paragraph.) --Wetman 14:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Doops | talk 22:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it could be argued that those redirects should lead instead to coat of arms and that, indeed, a great deal of THIS page's content should be located THERE instead. But instead of addressing that issue, I have simply contented myself with editing that page to make it clear that anybody really wanting to learn about coats of arms should look here instead, where the information, although still pretty badly organized, is at least voluminous. Doops | talk 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, and have been thinking about making those changes myself. However, I also feel that the primary page for this topic group is the Heraldry page, so until I or someone else creates enough text about heraldry to keep this article of suitable length, I'd just as soon see the information stay here. -- EncycloPetey 04:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blazon: TMI

Does an overview of the field really need minutiae of blazon such as the diminutive of the quarter and the names for roundels? --Tamfang 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not. This article seems to be on everybody's list of "things I'll get around to rewriting one of these days." Doops | talk 06:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately, this is the central article for the subject of heraldy, so many subjects for discussion get dumped here. Eventually, this article should include a general description of herladic duties, despite what is currently included in the article. Details on quarters and roundels should be discussed in articles on those subjects. --EncycloPetey 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 16th vandalism

Hi Heraldry editors. I just noticed that this page was vandalised on January 16th by an anonymous editor at 209.205.161.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so I reconstructed the blanked-out text plus subsequent additions with the Unix diff and patch utilities. Please review this diff between the pre-vandalized version by User:Tamfang and my fixed version; I believe I have restored the deleted text while preserving the additions that have been made since, but I'd like someone who's watching this article to confirm. Thanks. Mike Dillon 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for national heraldry pages?

In due course one can expect to see spin-off pages with detail on the heraldry of particular countries - e.g. on the heraldry of Scotland ((I'm thinking of having a go), the Vatican, the United States etc, or of previously extant bodies such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

At this early stage (Polish heraldry and Swedish heraldry exist. Does it make sense to continue in this format, e.g.

Scottish heraldry
Canadian heraldry
American heraldry (or should it be USA?)
Italian heraldry

except in cases where it obviously won't work, e.g., hypothetically, Heraldry of the Vatican City or Heraldry of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Is there a Wiki style to guide this? Thanks Mark Nesbitt 08:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a specific policy that would answer all your questions, but I can recommend visiting the pages where Category discussion happens and the Stub Sorting Project page. You can then see there what conventions are in use for naming Categories and Stubs, then model any article titles from them. You could also find a few people in each location who are experienced in dealing with some of the political and ethnic hot-issues that might arise from certain name choices, to avoid potential complications. --EncycloPetey 11:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry-related article request

Can anyone knowledgeable in heraldry try to fix up this article I created, Arrondi? The 1728 source was pretty confusing, and I likely messed something up. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-24 23:30

too texty

I'm surprised that there's no image at the top. The ideal thing, I think, would be a piece (containing about 2×2 shields) from some old Roll. Since I have no bright ideas how to obtain such a thing,

I'm thinking about replacing the diagrams with actual arms (which I can draw), e.g. (off the top of my head)

Per fess gules and or (Schwerin)
Gules a fess or (Austria)
Or two bars gules (Oldenburg)
Barry of 8 argent and gules (Hungary ancient)

with similar series for per pale, a pale, pallets (Battenberg), paly; per bend, a bend, bendy (Burgundy?), bendlets; a cross, checky, a saltire, lozengy; charges 2&1, in fess, in bend, in pale ... thus illustrating concepts of blazon, the rule of tincture, the tinctures (hm, what famous coat has vert, other than where it could be blazoned proper?), and the simplicity of early arms. Comments? —Tamfang 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The selection ought also to illustrate wavy, indented, embattled. —Tamfang 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and engrailed, invected, nebuly, dancetry, raguly, dovetailed, potenty, angled, beviiled, escartelly, nowy, battled embattled, arched, double arched, urdy, radiant, gyronny, etc Kittybrewster 14:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every word in the heraldic dictionary need not be illustrated on the main page, I think.

engrailed and/or invected, yes.
dancetty, yes.
gyronny, yes.
nebuly was apparently interchangeable with wavy in early days.

The other terms listed are rare enough to leave to another page, perhaps lines of variation (heraldry)? —Tamfang 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply showing several coats of arms, I think it would be more instructive to have images showing a variety of ways in which heraldry is displayed, such as a page from an armorial, a banner, in architecture, or in a cloak/surcoat. This article is almost entirely about coats of arms and their blazon, without treating much of the other subjects in heraldry, such as its origin & spread, history, regulation, inheritance, etc. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon Court

What is meant by "pre-heraldic"? —Tamfang 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The duties of heralds go back before the days of heraldry (which was originally called armory). Heralds acted as royal messengers, emissaries and ambassadors and were employed in time of battle to convey messages between opposing commanders. They were sometimes accompanied by a trumpeter who would blow his trumpet to draw attention to this important man. Kittybrewster 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family crest

There is a very strange conversation on Family crest talk page. Those who visit this page may be interested in participating. Kittybrewster 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not kidding. Can someone suggest language that might make Kittybrewster happy but less sweeping and parochial than "there is no such thing as a family crest"? —Tamfang 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone – was it me? I forget – proposed at least a month ago to merge Family crest into Crest (heraldry), and no one has objected. I was on the point of doing it today but thought, wait, it isn't really about crests! Hence my creation just now of a new section (containing only a pre-existing paragraph for now), provisionally titled Rights and wrongs. My proposal is that the substance of Family crest goes here, while Family crest itself becomes a redirect to Crest, which already has a note at the top pointing to both Coat of arms and Heraldry. —Tamfang 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of pix

How do you create a Category? I'm thinking there could be a Category of Wikipedia pages that contain armorial pictures. (Not sure what to name it.) I would like there to be a Category such that when I add [[Category:Articles containing coats of arms]] to a page such as Duke of Norfolk, then the Category page will include a link to Duke of Norfolk. But for this to happen, apparently, such a Category needs to be created – linking to it is not enough to create it.

And I invite suggestions as to what that Category ought to be named. —Tamfang 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Armorial_image Kittybrewster 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Section of "Suggested Reading"

Being aware that there are a number of avid regulars hovering around the Heraldry page, I thought it would be politic to post this HEADS-UP! I'm sort of knowledgeable about heraldry but I'm not an expert. However, I am a considerably experienced bibliographer and genealogy librarian, and I maintain a very extensive bibliography in the area of peerage, aristocracy, and closely associated subjects. I've gone through about a hundred of my annotations in the area of heraldry and selected those I consider the most generally useful and most broadly interesting. And I've subdivided them into a few broad topics and added annotations on a few. I hope you guys will add any other titles you feel strongly about. --Michael K. Smith 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic authority

We could use an article about generic governmental agency responsible for keeping records of heraldry in given countries, such as Canadian Heraldic Authority. There is an article on pl wiki at pl:Heroldia that should be interwikilinked to that article, if it is created.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brooke-Little

Hey...I've added the John Brooke-Little article to the list for peer review. Any of you contributors are welcome to make additions to the discussions.--Evadb 10:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer European

Salutation, reading around I have found little to no information pertaining to non european heraldry. Albeit the term seems more fitting to those nations that did actively participate in tournaments, Islamic(to name one) nations did bear emblazoned shield and banners. Some of these (in particualr areas of Muslim Spain) even participated in said contests. Of course I may of simply missed dedicaded articles to these heraldries, if so please poitn me in the right direction. If not I think it pertinent to at least mention them and at best similarly describe them.Dryzen 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry Portal...

Friends, I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better.--E va ^db 09:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Great! Who actually makes the portal when/if it's approved? It sounds like a fair bit of work.--Dave Boven 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heraldry portal has been approved by consensus. Please help flesh it out.--E va ^db 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic Symbolism...

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.--E va ^db 06:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Science of Heraldry

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?--E va ^db 05:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--E va ^db 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concure, we should revert the intorduction. Of course Art is an ancient synonym for science...Dryzen 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Heraldic Featured Article

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.--E va ^db 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]