Talk:Coronet

Gemology and Jewelry: Jewelry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.

Heraldry and vexillology

Coronet is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

tiara != coronet

The coin in the illustration shows a tiara, not a coronet: as I understand the terms, anyway, a coronet should be a circle all the way around the head, which this tiara clearly isn't. —Tamfang 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike a crown, a coronet never has arches."

What does "arch" mean here? It isn't explained in this article, or in crown. - 76.68.72.151 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the piece of metal that reaches from one side of the base to the other. However this is only the classical definition. There are crowns that have no arches (eg. Crown of Christian IV of Denmark) and there are coronets that do have arches (eg the various Coronets of Wales). Another definition is that coronets are worn by non-sovereign princes and crowns are worn by sovereigns and their wives, but this definition isn't entirely correct either, as you will see when you read some of our articles... Best, --Cameron * 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the prince of wales at

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

makes it clear that the single-arch (two half-arches) coronet of the Prince of Wales is a coronet and not a crown. Since the Prince of Wales's Coronet doesn't carry implications of sovereignty, why WOULD it be a crown? The sentence "Unlike a crown, a coronet never has arches" has been inserted without any documentation or support. Why is it arches that make a crown a crown? Why isn't it sovereignty? Until today I have never, in my life, seen any reference to the "crown" of the Prince of Wales. It has always been "coronet". I believe that references to the Prince ofWales's "crown" in this "Coronet" wiki-article are just incorrect.69.86.130.90 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Augmenting my own remarks I find the same usage ("crown" instead of "coronet" on some other wikipedia pages referring to the symbols of the Prince of Wales. Is the same person making all of these edits?69.86.130.90 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

A Prince of Wales (and a male Heir Apparent prior to being created Prince of Wales) does NOT have a Crown

I noted that ten years ago and it's been ignored. The websites I cited 10 years ago might have shifted around. Today, from the website https://www.royal.uk/honours-principality-wales

(which probably isn't worth anything as it's only the Royal Family website of the government of the United Kingdom) says QUOTE: In 1677, Charles II issued a warrant which stated that 'the Son and Heir apparent of the Crown ... shall use and bear his Coronet composed of Crosses and flowers de Liz with one Arch and in the midst a Ball and cross...'. This design specification has been observed ever since.UNQUOTE There is a later reference on that page to the Prince of Wales's Crown, made in 1728. That's not contradictory because it's the well-known title of a specific artwork of jewelry. Something may have the popular name "Crown" and not be a crown, just as the popular name "Black Prince's Ruby" (a famous red gem in the Crown Jewels) has never caused, by mere fact of the name becoming commonplace, the chemical composition of that gemstone to morph from a Spinel to a Ruby. The Black Prince's Ruby isn't a ruby but a spinel, and the Prince of Wales's Crown is not a crown but a coronet. (Likewise the Prince of Wales's Feathers are not a heraldic badge that is conferred when an Heir Apparent is created Prince of Wales. Those feathers are the badge of the Heir Apparent at the moment a Monarch dies, BEFORE such Heir Apparent might be created Prince of Wales.)

Do I not even deserve an argument here? The coronet worn by the Heir Apparent (including the current Prince of Wales) isn't a crown, because the person wearing it is not what you would call a Sovereign or Monarch. Just putting an arch on a coronet doesn't turn it into a crown. If it's not on the head of a Monarch, it's not a crown. It's a coronet. Please FIX THIS or TELL ME WHY NOT!2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Crown for the Garter King of Arms (England etc) & Lord Lyon (Scotland)

Does anyone know what the crown for the Garter King of Arms (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) looks like? Apparently the office holder for this most senior title in English Heraldry is entitled to wear a crown (called a crown, not a coronet) at the Coronation. There is also a crown made for the Lord Lyon King of Arms (Scotland). If anyone can add a pictorial diagram of either (or even both) to the others in the article that would be of great interest! Thanks Ds1994 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the crown of an English KoA has eight oak leaves, standing tall and rather narrow; with the motto MISERERE MIHI DEUS on the circlet. —Tamfang (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Royal Coronet: Version 'Type Five' Other grandchildren of the Sovereign.

I have reverted back the diagram of the 'Type Five' British Royal Coronet - other grandchildren of the Sovereign (such as children of the daughter of the Sovereign) or any other persons judged eligible to wear it. It is quite possible that the British Sovereign at the next coronation may designate by Royal Patent the use of this type of coronet to any eligible person within the Royal family whom the Sovereign permits to wear it. This is the fifth in a series of 'types' of royal coronet as worn in previous coronations and should therefore be included in the list. Ds1994 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about some examples of people who did wear it? (Not for the article itself, but to clarify things here) —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be 'clarified here'. The Type Five Princely coronet is laid down by Royal Patent and it should be included in the list. But just deleting it Tamfang due to your own personal whim is neither helpful nor in the spirit of Wikipedia. I firmly suggest in future that if you delete things you leave an explanatory note in the discussion page giving the reasons for your deletion. I have provided a note for the re-insertion and you should follow protocol and courtesy and do the same. Deleting information for the sake of it is not acceptable.

But if you do want an example, I can provide one. Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Carisbrooke, as a grandson of Queen Victoria (through his mother Princess Beatrice) was permitted to wear the Type 5 Princes Coronet (instead of the coronet of a Marquess).Ds1994 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for overcoming your anger long enough to indulge me with that example. Now: did Carisbrooke bear that coronet by automatic right, or by personal warrant? (I ask because I'm not aware that Peter Phillips, for example, has any kind of coronet.) If it's not automatic, then how meaningful is it to say that such a coronet is "for" such grandchildren?

Perhaps you'd humor me further by specifying – with reference to the article history – which of my edits so offended you, so that I can more effectively repent. I did delete a few words here and here but somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point entirely. Whether the coronet is awarded automaticlly or by warrant the design exists as laid down after the Restoration. You're quite right Peter Phillips does not have this coronet but he, and his sister, could be awarded a coronet at the next coronation, and being the children of a daughter of the Sovereign this is the coronet they would be awarded (and quite rightly so in my opinion, as they rank senior in Succession to the throne before TRH's the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, who wear the Type 4 coronet). Whether it's automatic or awarded is irrelevant: the specific design exists and should be included in the list.

By the way, we may well need to include another design of coronet at the next coronation for the new 'Princess Consort' (if the Duchess of Cornwall does not take the title of Queen). Camilla's coronet will need to be different from Type 2 (sons and daughters of the Sovereign) as it has been laid down by Royal Warrant that Camilla will be senior to all other Princesses of the Blood Royal - so Types 2 and 4 are definitely out, as well of course Type 1 (Heir Apparent, strictly a crown). Any ideas? My guess it may be the Queen Mother's crown but without the arches - the difference with Type 2 being this 'coronet' is studded with precious stones. Ds1994 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of missing the point entirely, you persist in refuting a point that I have no interest in making. —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article dominated by secondary information

This article seems dominated by trivia about the etiquette of coronets in the British monarchy. But no where does it describe exactly what constitutes a "coronet" or how this differs from a "diadiem," a "tiara," or other permutations of crown.TheCormac (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the first paragraph of the article clearly explains what constitutes a coronet. And coronets are not confined to the British Royal Family: the grades of Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron (Lords of Parliament in Scotland) are held by Peers outside the Royal family.Ds1994 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to YouTube Video

I think the Link to the YouTube video showing a coronet being worn should be removed, as the video is not available to be watched outside of the U.K. Also, as the video can be altered, removed, and regulated by a YouTube user, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia (as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). Essentially, if we leave the link in, it will have to be removed eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingQueenPrince (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl's Coronet

The article states that in a two-dimensional representation of an Earl's coronet has five leafs showing. If that is correct, this is incorrect. If the picture is correct, the description is incorrect. Which is it? 101090ABC (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; I have changed the text to agree with the picture. J S Ayer (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French Marquis Peer

A depiction is shown in this article of a coronet for a French peer who is a marquis (misspelled "marquess", which is the term used for Britons of that rank) and a different one (no cap of maintenance) for a marquis who is not a peer of France. Even French peerages attached to countships were rare in France outside the royal family, and none were granted from 1500 on, but is there any example at all of a French peerage being attached to a marquisate? The marquisate is, in general, a title granted and borne by nobles in Latin countries and the UK, being non-existent (or rare to the point of non-existence) in Northern and Eastern Europe. So what is the historical source for and evidence of usage of marquisal coronets in such countries? FactStraight (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. You seem to be questioning the existence of French marquis-peers, which is reasonable. But then you say "Marquises are rare in Northern Europe", by which I assume you mean France? So why would you question the existence of a French marquis if you just used the term for a French marquis? -Anonymous

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coronet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British coronet rankings

NB that the 1917 warrant says "the respective wives and widows of the persons entitled under this our royal warrant or under the aforesaid warrant of [K]ing Charles the Second may bear and use the coronet of their respective husbands" - should this be stated in the article? I suggest adding the following notes: -

1. after "Prince or Princess – son[, wife of a son] or daughter of a sovereign; also brother[, wife of a brother] or sister of the sovereign" - "The living people within this category are Charles, Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Sophie, Countess of Wessex."

2. after "Prince or Princess – [son, wife of a son or daughter] of the Heir Apparent" - "The living people within this category are Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex."

3. after "Prince or Princess – [son, wife of a son or daughter] of other sons of a Sovereign" - The living people within this category are Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent."

Thoughts? I suggest that it is not original research to state that the people in question are related to the present and past sovereigns in the ways stated. Alekksandr (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]