Talk:Cadency labels of the British royal family

table format

Hope you like it. The "colspan" jazz is so that three or five points can fit into the same space. This is on my watchlist, so put any questions here. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

colours

The anchors are blue and the scallops are red, if memory serves. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, unfortunately there are no blue anchors, or any red scallops in commons. I will state the correct colours of these in their description/history/reference sections, until I get them created.

If I knew how to extract relevant pieces from the existing SVGs ... —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to create a small 3 section box, for 3 x 30px charges, similar in size to the box-format ones, ditto for 5 x 30px charges? and can you un-divide the George V & Edward VIII, notes sections? Thanks for your assistances, Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please paraphrase the first request. —Tamfang (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to create a 'cheap label' like this - but - which can be inserted into a line of text. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you change the Label column in the new box to five sections? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

attempt to draw a label from scratch

Pretty close, if i can find a way to get rid of that white hairline. —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a version without the white hairline, or at looks that way in Safari. Note it's lost spacing everywhere so is much more compact.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good in Firefox too! —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

HA! Not good in IE(8). Tom Ruen (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we haven't IE to kick around anymore. —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

filling the table

<minced expletive>, i thought you had gone to bed (as you had not edited in about an hour) so i filled in the table — in order of birth rather than precedence, so that changes in practice would show up. —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I removed Philip because he was never granted a British royal label; his use before 1947 of Alice's arms is accounted-for elsewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. (Boutell page 219): Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1947-1949) Bore Royal Arms of Princess Alice differenced with a label of three points argent; the middle point charged with a rose gules and each others with an ermine spot. Reinstated. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is Alice's label. My copy of Boutell (1978) has slightly different wording: "...the arms of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria, viz. the Royal Arms differenced with a label of three points argent, the middle point charged with a rose gules and each of the others with an ermine spot." —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is only a partial description of his arms, anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the prefix Prince/ss as redundant: everyone in the table has that title. Also, to disambiguate I'm tentatively adding "of <Dukedom>" even where that style was never used in practice. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-launch

• Royal Labels of (who, what, or when?): the UK since Victoria / the UK since 1837 / the UK (1837-) / Royal Labels (1837-) ?
• RE Pending: Royal Labels of: George I to Victoria / Hanover to Saxe Coburg-Gotha / Royal Labels (1714-1837) ? Stephen2nd (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This Article has been created solely as a new encyclopaedic Wikipedia reference source. The Article is about the use, history and meaning of these inanimate images called labels. The specific ‘use’ of these symbols is stated in reference to the term ‘Royal,’ in reference to the period from the ‘United Kingdom to now’. Accordingly, any reference of use of a label, by any ‘Royal within these parameters’, should be included without any exception.

The fact that certain label-users fought on the side of the German or British branch of the Sax Coburg-Gotha family in WWI or for whatever reason or excuse they had their titles &/or bearings removed, does not alter the fact that they bore labels under Royal Warrant. This reasoning is also applicable to the use of labels by Philip, Diana, Fergie and Camilla. In all these instances, the Royal Warrant section should state who gave it and when, also, who removed it and when. The ‘notes’ section should then give the relevant reason why.

With the exception of changing the colours of the Anchor and Scallop, and including ALL recorded label users, cannot think of any more relevant contributions to this article, so I have started work on its predecessor. User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England‎. Unless you have any suggestions for the further development of this one…………?. Stephen2nd (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the lists of princes because those persons listed who are relevant to this article are already listed in this article, not because of anything that happened in 1917. Nobody got a warrant for British royal arms by being a prince of Saxony.

Are you saying now that Diana, Sarah and Camilla — and no other wife of a prince — got separate personal warrants to bear matrimonial arms? —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the article about labels or about label-bearers? —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it's unremarkable that no label was assigned to George I: a day before he inherited the crown, he was not a member of the BRF at all. —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

genealogies

Victoria's and Albert's respective articles have their ancestors. How are they at all relevant here? —Tamfang (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert, as a Queen and a Consort, represent the end of the Hanoverian line, and beginning of the Saxe Coburg-Gotha line. Their genealogies created this scenario, and their ancestor’s labels and charges, are relevant to the subject matter in this article. For instance, Victoria is regarded as having no known Arms, and the 1st Label depicted, (red cross center point), is attributed to Albert. However, by reference to her genealogy it can be seen that Victoria’s father also had a label (fleur-red cross-fleur). This same label was given to the 3rd son Arthur (Strathearn), which was one of Victoria’s mother’s titles.

The relevance of this label-relationship, achieved in reference to this genealogical chart, shows evidence of a definitive pattern, to meanings and usages of these label-charges.

This definitive pattern is further exemplified by Elizabeth and Philip, as a queen and a consort, who represent the (implied) end of the Sax Coburg-Gotha line, and beginning of another new line of succession. NB: Elizabeth uses the label of Victoria’s first daughter; and Philip used the label of Victoria’s second daughter. Elizabeth was a blood princess of Sax Coburg-Gotha, during her marriage and birth of Charles, and succeeded to the throne as such, on the death of George VI, then, changed her name (not blood-line) afterwards. Stephen2nd (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What a jumble of notions you have here.

Neither Victoria nor Elizabeth, so far as I can see, established a new pattern of cadet labels to go with the new dynastic Y-chromosome; and even if they did, the ancestry of consorts has nothing to do with it. (I'd like to think that the hearts are for Denmark, but Leopold and Beatrice had no near Danish ancestry.)

Silly me, the hearts must be from Lüneburg. —Tamfang (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip used the label of Victoria's second daughter by inheritance from her, not by new creation. Or did George VI give him permission to add Alice's arms to his Greek arms in 1947 and then revoke it in 1949?

Naturally some of the labels are repeated, and it's not at all surprising that George VI would give his first daughter the same label that Victoria gave to hers. And most of the names of royal dukedoms have pre-Hanoverian precedent; would you drag in all of their ancestors, too, to "explain" that? — Speaking of dukedoms, do you think that Victoria's mother got Strathearn as part of her styles because of her own ancestry??

Returning to the immediate point — The pedigree does not show the label of the duke of Kent & Strathearn; François Velde's list (which you apparently copied) does, I believe. Since this embryonic article is about labels, if you want to make a point about either continuity or discontinuity (I can't tell which) of dynasties, why not include the Hanoverian labels in the table? —Tamfang (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

the list of charges

... The system of a special mark for difference for each member of the family goes back to the time of Henry III .... This label was almost always white, and overlaid with small figures, or charges, such as the red crosses of St George.

We might mention that the charges used today and the charges used in Plantagenet times have almost no overlap.

The list of charges vacillates between complete sentences and verbless noun-phrases.

The red or Tudor Rose, which has been used as an English royal badge since 1485.

Whose label has a plain red rose? When was a plain red rose last used as a royal badge? —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Velde, red roses were used until recently; only descendants of George VI have Tudor roses. Neubecker (which I'm looking at for the first time in years) shows the same roses all over; this chart is too small to distinguish clearly between Tudor roses and roses gules (seeded Or). —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

torteaux

For Louise (1724–1751), Velde says "torteaux" not "torteau"; my best guess is that it's 3 per point, as borne by pre-Hanoverian dukes of York. —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Torteau, the name now always applied to a roundle gules. At the same time the French apply the word to roundles of all tinctures, including even or and argent. (See Roundle.) It is said that tortoilly may be used for semé of torteaux, but it has not been observed. Stephen2nd (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Their colour is not in question. —Tamfang (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

wishlist

If someone strong in SVG-fu ever reads this:

The best way to illustrate, I think, would be with a single box containing eleven SVGs in the pattern --X--X--X-- or -X-X-X-X-X-, where X is a pendant and '-' is a space. Let's say 32 pixels wide. We need 19 20 images in all: spacer, plain white, red cross, single red rose, blue anchor, single red heart, blue fleur-de-lys, red canton, ermine spot, thistle proper, red leopard, Tudor rose, two hearts, red escallop, green trefoil, torteaux(3?), three hearts, crown, bee, three red roses. (Most if not all of these can be extracted from existing SVG images.)

If the width is 32 pixels then the height, I guess, is 112–160: 64–96 for the pendant itself, 16–32 for the crossbar above it (into which the charges can extend if necessary), and 16+16 for background above and below. The middle of the table should then look like a column of labels on a continuous background. I'd make the background either dark red (as above) or grey; it's too much work to make it look like the Royal Arms and besides it would irritate the Scots. ;) —Tamfang (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Added an image that I missed; added colors to the list. —Tamfang (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

George I

A monarch as the; fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself.

Irrelevant: a monarch can determine his own arms. — "the;" is never correct. —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

unique?

Great Britain is the only country in the world in which using a mark of difference (charge) for individuals is still customary, especially to the greatest extent by the Royal Family.

I removed this sentence because I believe other royal families still use such marks. —Tamfang (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote Neubecker (p 96): “Great Britain is the only country in the world in which the classical procedure of using a mark of difference for individuals is still customary, and this is done to the greatest extent in the Royal Family.” Stephen2nd (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute the assertion, only its relevance. This article is about the unique usages of royalty, not about customs of the general population. —Tamfang (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally the reworded version is less accurate than the quotation from Neubecker, in that it seems to say that British royal cadency is even more different from that of other countries, which is backward. —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Are the labels on the shields/arms/users of the 'other countries' associated with this German blood-line? Which other countries use this system?Stephen2nd (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If by "this system" you mean one that matches the British system in detail, none, I assume. But I believe Spanish (and formerly Portuguese) royal cadency uses labels in a similar way, and Belgium (like France) uses labels among other charges. Swedish royals have a quarter representing their ducal style. Many German houses used no differencing, as I imagine you know, but I think Prussia (among others) used bordures. I don't know what schemes other monarchies use, nor what you mean by "associated with this German blood-line". —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The crown prince of Spain has a plain label azure, and other royals have charged labels argent! (You can find them from Line of succession to the Spanish throne.) I'm not finding any other currently reigning houses that use difference marks at all. The second son of the queen of Denmark has an inescutcheon of Oldenburg impaling Monpezat. —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by blood-line, is that Neubecker states “Great Britain”, rather than the “British monarchy of the Hanoverian &/or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family”. Did this Spanish label originate from the House of Boubon -via- Alfonso XIII who married Victoria Eugénie Julia Ena of Battenberg, the granddaughter Victoria, in 1906? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean "did the Spanish royal house copy the British practice because they're descended from Ena?", I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. And maybe Philippa of Lancaster brought it to Portugal. (See Jiří Louda, Lines of Succession, tables 116–118.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

-No, the blue label was used throughout the 18th and 19th century to denote the Prince of Asturias, as it was in the 17th and 16th centuries also. You're quite rightin saying that german royal houses (in germany, of course) do not use cadency marks (different helms being held to be a good enough distiction between cadets of the same house)

I've done a bit of research, and from what I can gather:

Royal houses that use marks of Cadency:

• Portugal-used-and indeed uses marks of cadency to denote younger sons
• Sweden-members hold a dukedom, which is reflected in the arms in the 3rd quarter of their respective arms.
• France-House of Capet and its myriad branches have used an extensive cadency system to this day.
• Spain-uses system of labels (see above)
• Yugoslavia-used labels and bordures on occasion (Prince Paul's branch used a bordure or, recent princes (e.g. Prince Tomislav) have used labels)
• Netherlands (labels and quarterings used)
• Luxembourg- Henri I whilst heir apparent used a label argent. His father whilst heir apparent quartered luxembourg and Bourbon-Parma.

Belgium-labels and bordures are used for those princes not in the direct line of succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Savoy/Sardinia/Italy-used system of bordures for younger branches of the royal house, label azure for the heir apparent.
• Russia (grand dukes not in direct line used a bordure sable strewn with lions heads)
• Prussia/German Empire-(used bordures for younger branches and a bordure gules for the german crown prince.)

Royal houses not using cadency marks:

• most -if not all German houses with the exception of Prussia/German Empire
• Norway
• Bulgaria
• Greece
• Montenegro
• the Karadjordjevic Yugoslavian royal house when it was the Serbian Royal house. Also the House of Obrenovic
• Denmark (although the Queen's second son DOES have oldenburg and laborde de monpezat impaled on an inescutcheon.)
• Romania
• Austria-Hungary inc. Tuscany, Modena etc. branches (although the arms borne by the emperor and the arms borne by all the archdukes did differ)
• Monaco
• Liechtenstein
• Albania-both Zogu and Wied HousesJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"associated with this German blood-line"

FYI: A list of Knights of the Garter from Whitakers Almanack (1884). With the exception of the Shah, most of these are Hanoverian &/or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha blood-line descendants.

royal family ("royal knights"),

• 1. HRH Prince of Wales PC.
• 2. HRH Duke of Edinburgh PC.
• 3. HRH Duke of Connaught PC;
• 4. HRH Duke of Albany PC;
• 5. HRH Prince Albert Victor of Wales;
• 6. HRH the Duke of Cambridge PC;
• 7. HRH the Duke of Cumberland;

foreign heads of state ("stranger knights")

• 8. The Emperor of Germany; 9. The King of Portugal; 10. The King of Denmark; 11. The King of the Belgians; 12. The Emperor of Austria; 13. The Emperor of Brazil; 14. The Shah of Persia; 15. The King of the Hellenes; 16. The King of Italy; 17. The Emperor of Russia; 18. The King of Sweden and Norway; 19. The King of Spain; 20. The King of Saxony; 21. The King of the Netherlands; 22. Duke of Brunswick; 23. Duke of Sax Coburg and Gotha; 24. Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh-Streiltz; 25. Grand Duke of Hesse; 26; Crown Prince of Germany; 27. Prince Christian of Holstein; 28. Prince William of Prussia;

And presumably this list has something to do with the use of labels in Continental royal cadency ?!? —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This blood-line ranking system is relevant to international and continental royal cadency. All of these titles (1-8) & (8-28), represent the “German blood-line” by seniority, of title, and rank, in terms of succession either the British Throne, &/or by rank of succession to the monarchies of these countries, by the Houses of Hanover &/or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

All the people in the Label-Article are ranked by a blood-line hereditary system. Every one of these is related, by heraldry, or by one way or another, to most people in this KG list. It is important to define and understand the meaning of labels and cadency in this specific context. Stephen2nd (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cadency maintains uniqueness among living members of a (mostly) agnatic lineage. That's all it does. The number of points in the label (and secondarily the number of points with charges) shows – mostly – whether the bearer is a child or grandchild of a monarch, but that in itself is irrelevant to the order of succession. More importantly to your immediate point, it does not express relations between houses at all except insofar as marks may be used allusively ad hoc. The occasional repetition of an assigned cadency-mark has no systematic meaning.

At least, none that has been revealed to the public! —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That most (not all) of these Garter kings have some Saxe-Coburg or Hanoverian ancestry is not surprising; royalty was a mostly endogamous class. Are they listed here in order of their appointment to the Garter? If so, do you think that sequence is significant? —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish labels

• The Prince of Asturias: a plain label azure.
• Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo: "a label of three points argen, the central point charged with a Eucharist or."
• Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca: "a label of three points argen, the central point charged with a palm vert"
• Infanta Pilar, Duchess of Badajoz: "a label of three points argent, the first and fifth points bear an oak, the second with a lion gules with one of the Pillars of Hercules argent."
• Infanta Margarita, 2nd Duchess of Hernani: "a label of three points argent, the outer points charged with a castle argent, the middle point with the head of King Alfonso VIII of Castille."

label creation

RE: Royal Standards of England, Section: (In the fly | Liveries | Supporter). With a little restructuring, you have almost created the requested ‘label-format’, which could be visualised by use of colour. Could this be achieved, as this look better in the ‘Prince of Wales-sections’, rather than just empty spaces? Stephen2nd (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've recreated this JohnBlackburne version, how do I fit it into the label-section ? Stephen2nd (talk)

intro sentence; all males differenced arms?

Is this supposed to be a freestanding separate article? If so, it seems to lack a proper introductory sentence (with wiki-bolding, etc.). More appropriate would be something along the lines of "Heraldic labels are used to differentiate the inividual coats of arms of members of the royal family of the United Kingdom." etc.

Also, I really don't know whether it was a "key principle of the Gallo-British heraldic tradition that no two males should simultaneously bear the same arms". There was certainly a system of difference marks which could theoretically be used to achieve such a goal, but in many contexts the use of such cadency marks was far from being systematic and thorough -- and the use of accumulated cadency marks which would have been required to fully implement such a principle (e.g. an annulet on a crescent on a mullet, or whatever) was in fact quite rare... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, any and all contributions welcomed. I'm going to upload this now. I've also created User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels, where I've put the general ideas of this project, subject to consensus. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cadency is largely ignored nowadays, but that's why I wrote "was a key principle"! —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In some particular contexts in the past it was useful to be able to distinguish between the arms of a man and those of his living father; or between the arms of a group of brothers, but this was never carried through in the heraldry of England in any systematic way which would rigorously ensure that "no two males should simultaneously bear the same arms". It's hard to see how something which was honored more in the breach than in the observance could be a "key principle"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edmund of Langley arms

Earls of Lancaster

the title

I'd have called it Cadency labels of the British royal family. The top of the table predates the United Kingdom, for one thing. For another, "Royal Label" is not a standard term so far as I know. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

However, the royal family does have a unique use of labels (in non-royal cadency marking, the label is used only for the eldest son). I would probably prefer the current title (with decapitalization of "Label"). -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think the name should stay the same, UK just designates now, and the area in which it is used, the emphasis being on kingdom, rather than Britain or British Isles. Although 'Royal Labels' may not be a standard term, it should be. But if it is correct grammar to use a small (l), so be it. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not grammar so much as Wikipedia titling conventions; there's something about it somewhere on WP:MOS or a related linked page, but I don't feel like searching for the exact link right at the moment... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you capitalize Royal Label in ordinary text? —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If I was referring to a Wikipedia article called "Royal Label," Yes :)

the emphasis being on kingdom, rather than Britain or British Isles: Does this mean you now prefer to go out of your way to avoid implying that it's a distinctive British practice? —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

YES ! If by this you mean my original point, (Neubecker states “Great Britain”, rather than the “British monarchy of the Hanoverian &/or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family”), re whether this is specifically a “British” or a “name/lineage/family/house” or a “German” - system. The 1st labels in this article were empowered by George I, who was a German-born immigrant, in claim of succession via a female line of descent. The 2nd batch of labels was also empowered by a German-born immigrant, a Prince Consort, also in claim of succession via a female line of descent. The 3rd batch is also empowered by a German-born immigrant, a Prince Consort, in claim of succession via a female line of descent. As “British” are commonly termed as the 65 million people who live in the British Isles, and none of these, excepting the aforementioned, have any association whatsoever with these labels, as such, the term “British-labels” is misleading. Albeit these monarchs define themselves and their representations as British, historically their motives and blood-line are German. Moreover, the use of these labels &c, is not a matter in which 65 million British have any say about. Although I prefer to go out of my way to avoid distinctions between English-British and German-British, this circumstance in reference to the article matters, is a specific exception! Stephen2nd (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No one but you has suggested "British-labels".

The use of difference labels has abundant precedent in England's royal family for centuries before the recent batch of Germans married into it, as you yourself have mentioned; if it came from abroad, then it most likely came from France (see the next few pages of Neubecker). When the Hanoverian kings came in, they adopted and continued a pre-existing practice of the British monarchy. If the crown had landed instead in the lap of a Russian, or of a shopkeeper from Huddersfield, they would presumably have done the same; Victoria would have given similar labels to her husband and children if she married an Estonian; Elizabeth would do as she has done if she married a Korean or Kikuyu or Kiowa — because their crown is that of Britain and the traditions that go with it, including the heraldic tradition, are of the British crown(s) whether or not they have points in common with others. So why must you keep banging on about German patrilineages? Does that word "empowered" mean that the authority of the British Crown to assign such labels would have lapsed if not for the German patrilineage of George, Albert and Philip?! —Tamfang (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Tamfang on this one -- I don't really see what the direct relevance of the German thing is, and the use of charged labels in English heraldry to difference the arms of junior members of the royal family goes back to at least 1391 and the arms of Edmund of Langley... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Or if you'll accept a charged blue label, it goes back to the 13th century and the earls of Lancaster... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In non-royal British cadency today the label is used only for the eldest son.... —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When agreed, the difference between 'royal' and 'non royal' labels, should be referenced in the article, along with the use of 7 point labels, and double labels. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that we've disposed of Stephen2nd's principal objections to including the word "British" in the article title. AnonMoos's reason for disliking "Cadency labels...", I guess, is that it would falsely imply that labels are in general British cadency practice, and these listed are distinctive only in being Royal. So how about "Cadency in the British royal family"?

The present title bothers me partly because "Royal Labels" is obscure and nonstandard, partly because they are attributes not of the monarch nor of the Kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The label does not define being German, British or English. The form of the label in each case is established soley under the prerogative of "royal decree", which is an attribute of a reigning monarch of a kingdom.

Due to the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705, applicable to the “issue of her body,” (George I &c, Kaiser Wilhelm II &c, EII & Philip &c), the naturalized identity of all of her/these descendants (1705-1948) as (German, English or British) cannot be defined with any legality &/or certainty.

These nationality issues are especially relevant; as the princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were excluded from the British royal family in 1893, the labels chosen independently by them were not recognized in England. (Neubecker) Stephen2nd (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't vandalize your signed statements of opinion. [S2 crossed out the sentence beginning "It appears".]

No one has said that "the label defines being German, British or English" (or indeed that it defines anything else). Does it define being "of the United Kingdom"?

All coats of arms legally borne in England or Scotland are granted by royal authority; so are they all royal arms?

Are you saying that the term British Royal Family is misleading because a smart-aleck lawyer might argue that "Harald of Norway and his sisters, Michael of Romania, Alexander of Yugoslavia, etc, are royal; they're British (being descended from Sophia and born before 1948); therefore they're British royals" ? ... That seems to be contradicted by your next sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point about the Coburgs is not as clear to me as might be hoped. If they and their labels are neither "of the United Kingdom" (because they were not assigned labels under authority of the UK Crown) nor "of the British royal family" (because they were kicked out in 1893), what's the problem? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Neubecker was just wrong (bear in mind there's a whole host of mistakes in that largely useful but badly translated work); the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Githa wasn't kicked out of the Royal family in 1893 and neither were any of his children, they just bore arms in right of both sovereign states (or, at least, Duke Alfred did), and same goes for his successor, Karl Eduard, who may have been deprived of his peerage titles, and his membership of the Order of the Garter but was not deprived of his position as a British Prince (though his children were, but for other reasons), nor did he in any way cease to be a member of the British Royal Family.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Nominator clearly explains why the original title was excessively ambiguous. The only explicitly dissenting response did not formulate an effective argument. -- Hadal (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Royal Labels of the United Kingdom → Cadency labels of the British royal family – The present title gives no accurate hint of who uses them and how or why; I imagine that most readers would imagine the phrase describes stickers used by the United Crown to mark things as Royal. In fact these labels, though assigned by royal authority, are not used in any way by the United Kingdom or its Queen; their function is to distinguish coats of arms of members of the royal family who are not the monarch. My proposed title describes who uses them and what for. The term 'cadency label' is in general use; 'Royal Label' is not. The article's originator objects to 'British', apparently (he's sometimes hard to understand) because the family in question is patrilineally German and/or because 'Britain' is not precisely synonymous with the kingdom, but the phrase 'British royal family' is normally used all the same. Relisted. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)—Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose.

This article is about LABELS. To distinguish between other labels, they are ROYAL. To emphasis between ‘where and when’ they are relevant, I chose UNITED KINGDOM as a generally used term of area, beginning from 1707 with King George I. I oppose the term "BRITISH," because the vast majority of the members of these families - are not British - and do not have labels! I oppose the use of the term “Cadency Labels,” (what other kind of labels are there?) as this is basically an obscure heraldic term, to describe an equally obscure heraldic term. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If these labels are ROYAL, presumably the Monarch has one?

How would calling them "of the British royal family" (a phrase which contains the word royal without the implication of belonging solely or primarily to the Crown) not suffice to distinguish them from other labels, or to indicate (more precisely!) the link with the United Kingdom? — in which George I never lived, as you know.

Whatever you mean by "these families" (all descendants of Sophia? of James I&VI?), I'm not aware of anyone applying the term British royal family to that broader set, nor do I propose to use it so, nor to include that broader set in this article. Do you think the term inaccurate, irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate as it is normally applied?

Other kinds of labels include non-heraldic labels, some of which must be used for Royal purposes of the United Kingdom, as well as heraldic labels as charges not for cadency; see Woodward & Burnett, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, which (unless my memory is worse than usual) gives a canting example. —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support a rename to decapitalize the word "Label", not convinced of the necessity of any other change so far... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of my edits have changed something that was neither inaccurate nor ungrammatical, and so were not driven by necessity, but I like to think they improved clarity. —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure about the convention of the use of the word 'Royal' I was under the impression that it was a term reserved for those granted the right to do so by the monarch (this is why the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are 'Royal' but the British Army is not). Would not perhaps Heraldic labels of the United Kingdom be more appropriate? Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, compared to Royal Labels it disambiguates Label better, but is even vaguer about how they're used and by whom. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the proposed title does a far better job of conveying what the article is about (to someone who knows the heraldic terminology, that is; and for those who don't, the present title is of no help either).--Kotniski (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support The article is about cadency labels used by members of the British royal family. DrKiernan (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

date ranges

178.16.0.184 recently changed "Edward of Kent (1935– )" [meaning that Edward was born in 1935 and is still living] to "Edward of Kent (from 1935)", etc. While either format could be misunderstood as describing the period during which the person in question used the arms shown, I think the new form implies it more strongly, since "from" before a birthdate is exceedingly rare. Any objections to changing back? —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest changing it to "(born 1935)". "From" should definitely go. Opera hat (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

The cantons gules look really strange as just a tiny red square in a white box. As the images in the table seem to represent what is shown on the points of the label, shouldn't the canton be right up in the corner of the box as it would be on an escutcheon? I'm afraid I don't know enough about creating images to change it myself. On another point: wouldn't the roses and torteaux for Princesses Caroline and Louise after 1727 be in pale, not in fess (as presently depicted)? Opera hat (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I just changed my window size and they rearranged themselves. I'm putting those line-break things in there to make sure they stay in pale. Opera hat (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The crosses gules should really be "throughout" as well. Though having just made the edit I mentioned above and seeing how the images are put into the table I'm realising making the crosses and the cantons reach the edge could be more complicated than I thought. Opera hat (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles as Duke of Rothesay & Earl of Carrick

Blason of John, Earl of Carrick

I've put in the blue-label of Charles as Duke of Rothesay. The origin of the commons image is from his arms as photographed in St. Giles Cathederal, Edinburgh. Charles also uses the title Earl of Carrick, which may be another label (?) Stephen2nd (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The notation Last used by Edward III of England (pre 1327) is confusing: surely he was never duke of Rothesay? I'd discuss this in the text rather than in the table. — The photograph shows a banner Scotland, a label azure. Seeing the blue label in the table without context, I took the entry to mean that in Scotland he bears the quartered royal arms with a blue label (rather than a white one).

I once saw, in York Minster in 1989 if memory serves, a memorial plaque for the duke of Clarence which showed an inescutcheon of about seven quarters, most of which I recognized as representing his father's dignities, including (now I get to the point) Argent a chevron gules for Carrick. —Tamfang (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The royal family of England stopped using blue labels when the blue quarter of France was added to the arms. —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That was never used on any official basis, however. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Grandsons of George III

Fox-Davies (1909) p. 496 says that Prince George of Cambridge was granted the arms of his father differenced by a second label of three points gules, and Prince George of Cumberland the arms of his father differenced by a label of three points gules charged with a white horse. P. 499 says that the second Duke of Gloucester (great-grandson of George II) bore "an additional plain label of three points during the lifetime of his father". Opera hat (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Update on the "Labels used since the Hanoverian succession" section

Just a little harmless edit to that article. It's been confirmed that William, Prince of Wales is using the Coat of arms of the Prince of Wales now. RicLightning (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)