Talk:Coat of arms of England

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• England Away Shirt 2010-2012 (crest).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lions, leopards or leopards?

The book The Heraldic Imagination by Rodney Dennys (published 1975) describes the animal displayed on the English royal arms as follows:

The heraldic Leopard, which we now blazon as Lion passant guardant, was the offspring of the adulterous union of a Lioness and a Pard, or a Lion and a female Pard. Nicholas Upton said that the 'Leopard ys a most cruell beeste engendered wilfully of a Lion and a beeste called a Parde, lyk unto a Catt of the moutaine' He also says that 'a Leopard ought to be painted wt his whole face shewed abroad openly to the lookers on', a point made in the Tractus de Armis, by John de Bado Aureo, who adds that to bear a Leopard in arms is a token that the first bearer of the arms was begotten in adultery. It will be recalled that when Richard the Lion Heart altered his arms in about 1195, after losing his Great Seal during his captivity, he changed them to three gold Leopards on a red field, and this may have been in allusion to his famous great-grandfather William the Bastard, the conqueror of England. (pp. 135-136)

Would it then not be most accurate, rather than the Lion of England being intended to represent, or having originally represented, a leopard (the African animal blazoned "Pard") the Lion of England actually most accurately represents/represented the offspring of a lion and a leopard (the hybrid animal blazoned "Leopard") - with the possible connotations of bastardy the author alludes to?

Whilst perhaps confusing, all these lions and leopards, I do think it is worth adding in some small form to the article, that it is very possible the charge in question is supposed to represent a leopard rather than a leopard. WikiCobalt-Chloride- (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is little in that quote that isn't problematic, and calling this 'very possible' is not well founded. By the 15th century the two animals had become distinct in heraldic usage, and had developed a back-story for what they represented, but it is anachronistic to view these distinctions as having existed in the 12th century, when heraldry was in its infancy. His great-grandfather used a lion totem. His grandfather's arms have six lions on them. His uncle's arms had a lion. His brother had two lions. His brother-in-law had a lion. His own first coat was a lion, etc. There is no reason to think his second arms were anything but lions, and there is no indication any other type of felid was used in 12th century heraldry - the proliferation and distinction of heraldic charges was a later development, after a stage when the two terms were simply used to distinguish rampant from passant - these heralds were not wildlife biologists, and there is no reason to think that they drew species-specific distinctions any more than they did so for eagles. As to making a reference to William's bastardy, that is just overthinking it - not only was William's bastardy not something they celebrated, that is not how 12th century heraldry worked. Richard went with 3 lions because it had to be different from the 1 lion of his lost seal (and from the vast majority of animal coats, that mostly had one lion) and his brother had already been using 2-lions from before Richard became king, so perhaps with inspiration of other royal three-lion coats (Hohestauffen, Denmark) he may have come across on crusade, 3 it was. Agricolae (talk)

WikiCobalt-Chloride- -- The term "leopard" referring to a kind of lion belongs more to French heraldic terminology than English. In English heraldry, lions and leopards are distinct (and leopards don't occur very often). AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore because there are uncited paragraphs throughout the article. The article's history also stops at 2001: is there any other modern-day uses of the coat of arms? Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Coat of arms of England

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 00:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The article's history ends at 2001: are there any recent usages of the coat of arms? Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.