User talk:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of the United Kingdom

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)[reply]

colours

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 images in all: spacer, red cross, plain white, red rose, anchor, single heart, fleur-de-lys, red canton, ermine spot, thistle, leopard, Tudor rose, two hearts, escallop, trefoil, torteaux(3?), three hearts, crown, bee. (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]