Talk:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Line 131: Line 131:

:::::i think we should reinstate the official depiction of the Royal Arms, but it’s fine. After this [[Talk:Coat of arms of Canada|recent discussion]] about the inclusion of the free equivalent version of the arms of Canada, but still no consensus.[[User:Absolutiva|Absolutiva]] 14:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::We understand your opinions on this. I think it’s clear the others that have thus-far responded here that there is at present no consensus to do so here. The [[WP:LOCALCON]] at Canada articles has no bearing on any other article. As I’ve said outside of Canada widespread use of [[WP:OI]] for CoA is common. If you want to change that perhaps you should open a wider discussion at somewhere like [[WP:VP]] (and let us know if you do). [[User:Cakelot1|<span style=”font-family:Times New Roman;”>Cakelot1</span>]] ☞️ [[User talk:Cakelot1|<span style=”font-family:Times New Roman;”>”talk”</span>]] 15:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

::::The Tudor crown and the Gaelic harp were both in use before 1952, as was [[Talk:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom/Archive 2|shown in previous discussions]] and as described in the article. There was an attempt to move the files away from these false dates and towards proper descriptive titles (like ‘Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom with Tudor crown and Gaelic harp’)[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(2022,_variant_2).svg&diff=prev&oldid=751651832] but people kept moving them back to misleading names (like ‘Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (since 2022)’, etc.)[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(2022,_variant_2).svg&diff=prev&oldid=949673602]. The present arms (the ones supposedly ‘from 2022’) are identical to the ones used between the late 1920s (when the Gaelic harp became the norm, although it was used occasionally before) and 1952. The previous ones from 1901 to 1920s typically used the Tudor crown, but with the winged maiden harp. The St Edward’s Crown was used typically before 1901 and after 1952. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we should get the “both variants” version updated as well. You know, change the St. Edward’s Crown to the Tudor Crown on the England side, and to the Crown of Scotland on the Scotland side. I mean, it’s been done on the other royal coat of arms versions. So, why not this version? RicLightning (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal, but can someone help upload an updated version of this file(? 2401:E180:8880:E368:21A9:D330:5E69:2D81 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the introduction on the page has not been updated. 2401:E180:8880:319D:9379:7C8C:DEB8:1B49 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been updated by someone. 2401:E180:8880:319D:9379:7C8C:DEB8:1B49 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the coat of arms in this article Monarchy of the United Kingdom should be changed back to the version of both variants after the coat of arms has been updated. 2401:E180:8880:319D:9379:7C8C:DEB8:1B49 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the picture back to this one.

File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2022, both variants).svg 2401:E180:8881:F5DF:B05E:3FC9:93D0:F98 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which a new royal arms for use outside Scotland has been introduced: https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/new-coat-of-arms/

Said royal arms should be replaced soon Gibranalnn (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Scottish coat of arms should preferably be updated to be consistent with other Scottish coats of arms, at least he should not be using St. Edward’s Crown currently.

File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_Scotland_(Variant_1).svg 2401:E180:8892:4A51:7EDD:DEEC:30C0:8105 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which a new royal arms for use outside Scotland has been introduced: https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/new-coat-of-arms/

Said royal arms should be replaced soon Gibranalnn (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found both updated United Kingdom Royal Arms including the Scotland version.

As they have both been issued as Royal Warrants by King Charles III.
New Scotland Arms.
by Appointment to His Majesty The King, as Manufacturers of Estate Tweeds, Johnstons of Elgin’s Knitwear, and Woven Accessories Scotland, United Kingdom
New Arms elsewhere outside Scotland in colour.
Phoenix receives a Royal Warrant of Appointment
New Scotland Arms, in colour.
Valvona & Crolla Royal Warrant Appointment
RyTellyFan91 (talk) 23:39, 07 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m beginning to think that we may not receive official confirmation from the College of Arms of what their new coat of arms will look like but I believe it would more than likely be the these two:

and .

Would it not be better to use them in the meantime until we get official versions from the College of arms, instead of two blank spaces. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree JAMAMBTGE (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are no sources for many, if not most, of the junior royals, especially their wives, so it would be wrong to not put TRH’s arms yet keep the arms of those un-sourced royals. JAMAMBTGE (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad someone finally agrees. Sorry I only saw you’re response now. GandalfXLD (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I myself also fully agree. RicLightning (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Hopefully more will agree and we can get rid of those blank spaces. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in late – by “new” do you mean 2022? or has something happened since? —Tamfang (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. From The King’s accession in 2022 they have new coat of arms, coronets and monograms but we haven’t seen anything about them from official sources such as the College of Arms, yet. Until then why not use the two coat of arms above until we get official confirmation instead of just two very annoying blank spaces. GandalfXLD (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this idea. 2401:E180:8882:61EB:658B:ED22:6381:AEDB (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had to revert this, as we still have no evidence of what William’s full achievement looks like. I’ve had to remove the row claiming to show his Scottish arms for the same reason. So far as I’m aware we know what his non-Scottish escutcheon is because it’s appeared on his flag and car, but the rest is unconfirmed and therefore can’t be included in Wikipedia. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more words to the Prince of Wales’ arms Difference(s). RicLightning (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite long. I think the history of all the different artistic depictions of the crown makes an interesting story in its own right and could do to be spun off as a separate article. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that an article could add very much as it’s really a visual topic and we’ve described the artistic changes as best we can, I think. But a gallery might be worthwhile, as at Imperial State Crown#Gallery. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh apologies, I see what you mean – take out the artistic changes part and move it into a new article. I thought you meant create a new article with lots of new content.

Again though, I’m not convinced it would save very much space myself. We’d have to include a summary of the content here and a link to the main article. But there’s not actually a huge amount to take out as it’s not a very big section. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And re-reading the section now, it does seem that the ‘main article’ links for that section are the Tudor Crown and St Edward’s Crown. The only other artistic change given is the Irish harp. So there’s an argument that it could be condensed/summarised further if it seems too much. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any article would indeed lean heavily towards galleries over text. As well as the changes between Tudor/St Edward’s crown and face/no face on the Irish harp, I was mainly interested in how each new monarch apparently has a new official illustration commissioned (e.g. Reynolds Stone for Elizabeth II and recently Timothy Noad for Charles III) and how these differ in art style. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might struggle with depicting them I fear. Strictly speaking, none of the official versions should be on Wiki Commons ever because the Crown holds copyright in perpetuity for its depictions of the royal arms as a royal prerogative. It never expires like normal Crown Copyright. I’m not totally familiar with all the fair use policies on Wikipedia itself but I understand we might be able to use one authorised version for identification at the top of the page.

Speaking of artistic depictions, I notice the arms at the top of this article have changed. Some fellow on Wiki Commons going about removing all the 2022 versions of the Tudor Crown and changing them to his own tastes, not the King’s. I despair. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Said fellow is using an accurate Crown that matches the coat of arms, not a crown meant for artistic heraldic representations as used and displayed by the College of Arms for the official arms, that look out of place on the coat of arms as depicted on Wikipedia. The crown that is currently used has been used on the arms since His Majesty’s accession in 2022. My own tastes don’t matter. GandalfXLD (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reynold Stone illustration with St Edward’s Crown, still used on Acts of Parliament as of 2025

St Edward’s crown is still on the lectern at the end of Sunak’s premiership

I wouldn’t worry much about copyright. The official illustrations aren’t usually on the Commons anyway – they’re hosted locally under Fair Use.
You bring up another good point though – our articles about legislation and ministries tend to use the version of the coat of arms (especially regarding the crown and harp) appropriate to the monarch of the time, but as we’re currently seeing the rollout of a new illustration can take months or even years after a demise of the crown. In particular the government logos didn’t properly change over until well into Starmer’s premiership so any actual photographs from Truss’s and Sunak’s time will still use the old version, and Acts of Parliament have yet to change over. This probably applies to earlier transitions too e.g. George VI’s illustration would still have been used for the first few years of Elizabeth II’s reign. I realise that the way we currently do things is simpler and neater, but I worry that it’s not strictly historically accurate. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal.uk Royal coat of arms image of St Edward’s crown

https://web.archive.org/web/20240724220346im_/https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/styles/460×460/public/images/feature/crest2.jpg?itok=QwhNvHSG

A Tudor Crown with more elements, closer to the current 1901 version on Wikipedia

https://www.army.mod.uk/media/21475/new-cap-badges-hm-the-king-003-3.jpg 2401:E180:8861:4F18:5CE9:9812:16C4:2E87 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note beside Prince Andrew as an interim measure, until we find out precisely how the removal of his titles & honours will affect his arms. At the very least I expect he’ll lose the Garter from his achievement, but he might be deemed to have lost the right to display the royal arms in any form.—Odysseus 1479 04:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similarily the coat of arms of Canada (which is under Crown copyright) can only be used in this article under WP:NFCC policy. But the United Kingdom also used the official rendering of the coat of arms, such as UK Government arms (see here).

For example:

State logo (specific symbol approved and used to represent a country) vs Heraldically correct but wrong logo (image which is not the specific symbol used and approved by a country)
Arms of Canada, revised in 1957 (current official symbol of Canada)	Not the Arms of Canada (Arms never used nor approved by Canada)
this image is free use on Commons	May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of Canada.
Current Arms of Spain (current official symbol of Spain)	Not the Arms of Spain (Arms never used nor approved by Spain)
for some Spanish government works are exempted from copyright	May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of Spain.

Absolutiva 01:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Absolutiva. Is this the discussion you referred to in your edit summary? It does not make the case for changing the infobox images, and a consensus has not formed to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For editors arriving to this discussion, based on this edit summary I believe @Absolutiva would like to change the images used in the article infobox from those created by Sodacan to renditions based directly on those by Timothy Noad. I’m not sure what the copyright status of the proposed images is, given they’re based directly on an existing artistic rendition rather than being newly created from the blazon.

Sodacan 1
Sodacan 2

A.D.Hope (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Noad’s art will be deleted. We don’t use fair use images when free use images that show the same thing are available. There is no ‘official’ version of the arms. It’s a coat of arms not a logo. Each heraldic artist will draw the blazon slightly differently. You can even find official uses of Sodacan’s images as shown at Talk:William, Prince of Wales#Coat of Arms Update. DrKay (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sodacan’s rendering used in the actual announcement of QEII’s death by the BBC

You can even find official uses of Sodacan’s images my favourite example of something like this is the public broadcaster using SC’s emblazonment in their announcement of of the death of the head of state. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous one from 1952 to 2022 is in the public domain, after 50 years of Crown copyright protection. May be it’s heraldically correct, but still not the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom. Here’s the real coat of arms is free to use, see here. Absolutiva 11:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying things like “real” and “correct” but are failing to grasp that all emblazonment that confirm to a given blazon are equally real and correct. This was explained to you (multiple times) at WT:VEX#Unofficial rendering of coat of arms. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No depiction of the royal arms created by the Crown is in the public domain, and nor would they ever be. Normal Crown copyright doesn’t apply – the royal arms have a unique perpetual copyright under the unwritten royal prerogative. The National Archives won’t even let you photocopy it. See the ‘restrictions’ section of this very page. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sodacan’s versions to be a sufficient free alternative for use here.

By the way Absolutiva, please don’t edit war. Your edits were reverted, then follows ‘discuss’ per WP:BRD. You can’t then revert the reversion. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the user-generated version looks different than Queen Elizabeth II’s arms with a Tudor crown, that is not heraldically correct. If a free rendering is wrong, then we should fix it. Use of non-free media is reserved for when no free alternative is possible, not when it doesn’t presently exist. Absolutiva 10:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user-generated version looks different than Queen Elizabeth II’s arms with a Tudor crown: please precisely explain what is heraldically wrong. Obviously, each emblazonment is going to look different. As far as I can see it meets the blazon given in this article exactly (which is what is meant by being heraldically correct). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also good to note that even if the emblazonment in question is not heraldically correct (which again you have thus far failed to explain), for an WP:NFCC, a “correct” image must be impossible legally be created (which seems to go against the basics of heraldry, in that the thing which is official is the blazon, not any one emblazonment there-of) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should reinstate the official depiction of the Royal Arms, but it’s fine. After this recent discussion about the inclusion of the free equivalent version of the arms of Canada, but still no consensus.Absolutiva 14:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We understand your opinions on this. I think it’s clear the others that have thus-far responded here that there is at present no consensus to do so here. The WP:LOCALCON at Canada articles has no bearing on any other article. As I’ve said outside of Canada widespread use of WP:OI for CoA is common. If you want to change that perhaps you should open a wider discussion at somewhere like WP:VP (and let us know if you do). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tudor crown and the Gaelic harp were both in use before 1952, as was shown in previous discussions and as described in the article. There was an attempt to move the files away from these false dates and towards proper descriptive titles (like ‘Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom with Tudor crown and Gaelic harp’)[1] but people kept moving them back to misleading names (like ‘Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (since 2022)’, etc.)[2]. The present arms (the ones supposedly ‘from 2022’) are identical to the ones used between the late 1920s (when the Gaelic harp became the norm, although it was used occasionally before) and 1952. The previous ones from 1901 to 1920s typically used the Tudor crown, but with the winged maiden harp. The St Edward’s Crown was used typically before 1901 and after 1952. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment