NB — there was formerly an article titled "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland"; it included information both on the old royal arms and on the current Scottish version of the UK arms. On August 15 2005, these two articles were split off from one another, to Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland and Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland; the edit history before that date has remained with the latter article. The contents of the old talk page have been copied to both new pages.

Discussion from old "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" article

AIUI, this is the not the royal coat of arms of Scotland, but rather the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom as used in Scotland according to Scottish heraldry (just as the arms at Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom are the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom as used in England and Wales according to English heraldry). Marnanel 18:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately the images I had of the Royal Arms are corrupted. As soon as I have new images I will upload them so they can be compared.

I left an image of the Royal Banner just to whet your appetite :) --garryq 11:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone that knows something about heraldry needs to write an opening section to this article that explains what the difference between these two versions are, and what each are used for. The current opening "Since the uniting of the crowns of England and Scotland..." is quite abrupt. --JW1805 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

page move

If there's no objection, I'll be moving this page to "Royal Coat of Arms for Scotland" in line with my recent edits. Doops | talk 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB — this was obviated by a move, made the next day, to "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (for use in Scotland)".

New discussion

Merge with Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom?

I sort of think this article should be merged with Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. That page already had a "Present coat, as used in Scotland" section (with image). Why not just put all Scotland-specific information there, and that way everything would be on the same page?--JW1805 17:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a logic to that. The only counterargument I can think of is that some articles might want to make a link to this particular flag. If we merged the two articles, they'd have to make one of those specific section links (like this: Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom#Present coat, as used in Scotland) which nobody really likes. But I don't know if that reluctance should trump a desire for good organization.

One very important factor, however: when the two articles Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland and Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland were spun-off from each other, the old edit history remained (alas) with the latter. In the future dispensation outlined by JW1805 above, that edit history would get merged (unless we took action) into the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom article, which would be less than ideal; we'd prefer for it to live with the independent article. In short: the two Scottish articles would have to be re-merged, then the UK-arms-for-Scotland info removed from that article and added to the UK-arms article. Do you see what I mean? Doops | talk 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I agree with this; edit history can be retained with an admin-assisted move. Alai 02:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article title, suggestion to merge with Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland

The title of the article is wrong- the Scottish arms are not "of the United Kingdom", a google search of this term (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Royal+Coat+of+Arms+of+the+United+Kingdom+for+use+in+Scotland%22&meta=] gives only two articles in Wikipedia. It is best to merge this article with Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, where all the Scottish arms can be summarised in one page. Astrotrain 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names of these arms per other sources:

Royal.gov.uk- "Scottish version of the Royal Coat of Arms"
Heraldry Scotland- "The Achievement of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in Scotland"
Some random German site- "The Scottish coat of arms"
UK Foreign Office- "Scottish_royal_coat_of_arms"

Astrotrain 13:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about "Scottish Arms". It is about UK Arms. I oppose a merger with the Royal arms of Scotland page, which is about a different topic. "Some random German site" should perhaps have been left off your list of sources.--Mais oui! 13:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arms contain Scottish symbols and are only used in Scotland, therefore they are not UK arms. Astrotrain 15:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms actually contains Scottish, English and Irish symbols (why did you "forget" to mention the other two?), and is used by the regent of the United Kingdom, and his/her representatives when in Scotland. You have already tried to re-label these UK arms as "Scottish arms" over at the Scotland page, after initiating an edit war. I note that you were banned for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule after that episode. You will have to expend an awful lot more effort on talk and persuasion rather than unilateral action. I fear that in this case, you will find it very hard to persuade other users that "coat of arms X" is actually "coat of arms Y", because it just ain't so.--Mais oui! 15:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui, you keep stating that these are UK arms, but without providing any evidence that this is what the arms are called. They cannot be UK arms, since they are not used throughout the UK. The arms are clearly Scottish, despite the fact that the English and Irish symbols are contained in the shield.

Indeed the arms were at the Scotland page for a long time until August 14, then User:Wighson changed it to the historical Scottish arms. So to state the I had an agenda to insert UK symbols into the Scotland page, as you have stated in various talk pages is untrue. The edit war only started when you changed back to the old arms without proper discussion (eg instead of proper discussion, you were accusing me of vandalising the Swedish wikipedia!). Astrotrain 16:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Astrotrain. Here is how the arms are referred to in various reputable books I own:

An Outline of Heraldry in England and Scotland (by Robert Innes-Smith, with an intro by the Norroy & Ulster King of Arms)— as an illustration caption: "The Royal Arms as used on Her Majesty's Great Seal for Scotland"
Coats of Arms (by Andrew Stewart Jamieson) — as a picture caption: "The Royal Arms as used in Scotland, with the Scottish quarterings taking precedence."
The Complete Book of Heraldry (by Stephen Slater) — in the text: "...When James VI of Scotland aceded to the English throne in 1603...the ramping lion of the Scots was placed in the second quarter of the royal arms. When the British sovereign visits Scotland the quarters are reversed, Scotland taking the first quarter."
A Complete Guide to Heraldry (by Arthur Fox-Davies): "On 12th March 1762, a Royal Warrant was granted directing Lyon to add a 'double tressure conterflowered as in the Royal arms of Scotland' to the arms of Archibald, Viscount Primrose."

The language of the first three examples (like your source above which called them the "Scottish version of the Royal Coat of Arms") demonstrate that the queen has one coat of arms, which she uses in two different versions. The fourth example shows the heraldic authorities referring to the tressured-lion arms as the "Royal arms of Scotland" long after the act of union, long after anybody was using those arms on their own.

I've never seen any reputable heraldic source call the quartered arms depicted on this page the "Scottish arms." That would just be wrong, heraldically speaking. Doops | talk 20:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things cannot be the same. None of your sources say "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom as used in Scotland". And none give a definitive answer to what the arms should be refered to. I would recommend creating a Royal Arms of Scotland article, where each coat of arms can be shown and discussed. The current term suggests that the UK coat of arms are not used in Scotland, when they appear on the imagery of UK wide bodies such as the Passport agency, the Home Office, HM Treasury etc. Astrotrain 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

two different things cannot be the same — this argument is so incredibly simplistic that I'm speechless. Can you really say this with a straight face?

Your point about the UK-side bodies is interesting and should be incorporated into the article. Doops | talk 20:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you are saying- the UK arms are the same as the Scottish arms- despite their different appearances and uses. It is clear that a seperate Scottish coat of arms page is needed to show the different arms and explain them in neutral terms. A Coat of Arms of Scotland page showing the three main arms used in Wikipedia (Royal Arms on this page, historical Royal Arms and the Lion Rampant shield) would be a significant improvement, and can help avoid disputes. Astrotrain 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that HM doesn't have two independent coats of arms, but rather two different versions of the same arms. One version highlights the English elements, the other version highlights the Scottish elements. (In an ideal world, the UK monarch would have a third version for Ireland/Northern Ireland; but, alas, the previous monarchs neglected Ireland and in the present climate it would be politically impossible to start using one now.)

2) There already is a separate Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland article. The present discussion is whether this page should be merged into it, merged into Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, or left independent. Personally, I would be fine with either of options 2 or 3 (as long as my caveat, expressed quite a ways up this page, about edit histories is taken into consideration). Although I would oppose option 1 — merging this page into Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland — I would be perfectly happy to include a thumbnail illustration of these arms on that page with a link to option 2 or 3 (whichever is adopted) directing the reader there for more info on these arms. Indeed, I'll do so now. Doops | talk 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge; oppose move (listed on RfM, and not flagged here). Astrotrain, these arms are the "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom" (as used in Scotland, for use in Scotland, as used in Scotland, Scottish version; whatever formula you prefer), not the "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" -- your very own link asserts that in straightforward terms. Alai 02:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move Making this page into Royal Coat of Arms '''for''' Scotland would be defensible, but hopelessly confusing. Septentrionalis 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge; oppose move The "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland" and the "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" and not only very different objects, but represent very different concepts.

Whilst asttrotrain quotes use by the Home Office of the generic version on the arms it should be remembered that this is a London based ministry whose functions are in the main confined to England. The Stationery Office uses both English and Scottish versions as appropriate, whilst the Ministry of Defence rightly uses the same version throughout the country as on the grounds that rebranding vehicles etc as the cross the border seems unneccessary. Even the Royal Mail maintains a distinction between English and Scottish versions of the arms even though they use only the Crown. garryq 13:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm wondering about the statement in the article:

The Act of Union 1707 guaranteed the rights of Scotland to have their own version of the British coat of arms.

The text [1] of the act (Article 24) has:

...that a Seal in Scotland after the Union be alwayes kept and made use of in all things relating to private Rights or Grants, which have usually passed the Great Seal of Scotland, and which only concern Offices, Grants, Commissions, and private Rights within the Kingdom...And that the Privy Seal, Signet, Casset, Signet of the Justiciary Court, Quarter Seal, and Seals of Courts now used in Scotland be Continued, but that the said Seals be altered and adapted to the state of the Union as Her Majesty shall think fit.

Is a Seal the same thing as a coat of arms? Also, the text says that a Scottish seal will exist, but doesn't technically say that it must be different from the UK seal. Her Majesty could have thought fit to "alter and adapt" the Scottish seal so that it was identical to the UK one. Is it necessary to clarify this in the article, or is that just nitpicking? --JW1805 17:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second question -- true, the act doesn't say the Scottish version has to be different; but neither does the article. :) The article claims that two versions are mandated, as indeed they are. As for your first question -- well, a seal could have a coat of arms on it-- but according to the Great Seal of Scotland article, it doesn't. Huh. Disappointing. So maybe we have to cut that sentence? Doops | talk 02:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can provide an answer to this, I'm going to cut or modify that sentence. --JW1805 22:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The answer lies elsewhere in Art 24, which deals with both the Seals and the Quartering of Arms - "That from and after the Union, there be One Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom; And that the Quartering the Arms and the Rank and Precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland as may best suit the Union be left to Her Majesty"--George Burgess 13:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it the "...the Quartering the Arms and the Rank and Precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland as may best suit the Union be left to Her Majesty" that indicates that Scotland will have "its own version of the British coat of arms"? Is this really a mandate that they must be different? Seems like it is just saying that it is left to the monarch's discretion (like I said above, she could have just decided to use the same arms in both). --JW1805 19:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

Something needs to be done to trim down the various articles that contain so much duplicated information. We now have:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be separate articles, but there has to be a better way to present this information to avoid the current situation where they all contain the same images and/or the same sections (like the "Law" section).--JW1805 22:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland as the current title was confusing. Astrotrain 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origin of supporter beast

The Scots beast has "tufts of hair and a lion-tail" and split hooves of a goat, not smooth horse hooves. This goat-lion corresponds with Chimera goat-lion, sister of Keltos ("the Celt"). She was daughter of Echidna Kelto viper-dragon , daughter of Brettanos of Gaul. - Diodorus 5.24.: J.Fontenrose "Python" U.Cal. Cam. 1959.p.98. Chimera battled Greeks in Lydia and Lycia in Homer's day and became Mount Olympias volcano in Asia Minor. Kelto claimed that Chimera was equal to Athena war-goddess, and Zeus flung Kelto into Mount Etna for her impudence. It seems Zeus was mistook...

Philostorgius writes: I checked the Fontenrose reference, but he does not mention the Chimera on page 98. The only mention of Chimera in the whole book is on page i, in a quotation from Milton's Paradise Lost. Fontenrose does refer to “Chimaira” several times, as the daughter of Echidna, daughter of Keto. Diodorus nowhere in Bk. 5 refers to any of these characters. It is not feasible to associate Chimera with Unicorn: both have elements of goat and lion, but in different places: "Chimaera who breathed raging fire, [320] a creature fearful, great, swift footed and strong, who had three heads, one of a grim-eyed lion, another of a goat, and another of a snake, a fierce dragon; in her forepart she was a lion; in her hinderpart, a dragon; and in her middle, a goat, breathing forth a fearful blast of blazing fire." < The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White.[Hesiod's] Theogony. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914. 319> The standard descriptions of Unicorn vary over the centuries, but in late medieval Scotland, he had only one head, of a horse, and a lion's tail. Whatever Unicorn's body parts were, his unique feature is his single horn, which distinguishes him completely from Chimera.Philostorgius (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page move

I've moved this article to Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland, as the old title was confusing. Astrotrain 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight: you think that moving the article about the UK arms to "Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland" (sic) is going to reduce confusion with the separate article about the Scottish arms: Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. (If the casual reader cannot spot the difference then I am not surprised: compare in with of). --Mais oui! 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been moved back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. --Mais oui! 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"restore better version per talk"

That would seem to be questionable as regards to a) being better, and b) being discussed on this page. In particular, please clarify these assertions that the arms are "separate" (and at least spell that correctly next time you revert). All conventional heraldic wisdom seems to be that: these are the arms of the United Kingdom; and they appear differently in Scotland, and in England (and elsewhere), these being different heraldic jurisdictions, rather than there being any suggestion that they are in any sense different arms of different "things". Alai 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

There was some provisional agreement a number of months ago to merge with Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (as opposed to with certain other articles). This still seems like a good option to me: this article isn't especially long, and wouldn't make the other overly so; the history in each is duplicative; and evidently having two separate articles creates a certain confusion. Alai 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a merger. Do you think it would be a good idea to put it forward as a proper Requested merger with the standard vote and comment subsections? --Mais oui! 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A (semi-)formal straw poll's a possibility, but not strictly necessary. Feel free if you think it's likely to be disputed, certainly. Alai 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree not strictly necessary, but... I can only think of one person who is likely to dispute it, so perhaps we had better wait and see what he says about it. I am very reluctant to simple go ahead and Merge it without Astrotrain agreeing, because we are just going to enter "unpleasantries" territory again (and life has been just dandy the last week or so, as hostilities gradually died down). ~~Assuming that he does not agree, then I think that we really ought to do it properly, via the standard Requested move process, and giving all due notification.~~

In my opinion, for what it is worth, the best solution would actually be for Astrotrain to do the Merge himself, so that he can make clear exactly his perspective on the issue at the newly merged article. We may tinker a little if really necessary, but I am sure that if he made an honest effort at presenting the topic then we would certainly not quibble over details. --Mais oui! 12:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out that non-sensical bit: we are talking about a Merge proposal, not a Requested move. I was getting confused cos just been at a Requested move. Well, if no-one else joins in, then the consensus would appear to be to Merge? --Mais oui! 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to look at the article(s) until tomorrow as I'm off to IKEA tonight, but I will attempt to create a better article tomorrow that is both accurate, adequately sourced, and less confusing and contradictory. Astrotrain 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring this round to the topic under discussion, but ... do you support or oppose the proposed merger with the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom article? --Mais oui! 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]