User talk:Tom-L

(Redirected from User talk:Adelbrecht)
Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Adelbrecht's Talk Page
Place general talk page messages on this page. If I have made a mistake in one of my arms, please report it here.
Please place your requests on THIS SUBPAGE.
During periods of inactivity, my talk page tends to become a very confusing mess, which is why I am splitting it up.

File:External Ornaments of an Archdeacon (Church of England).svgEdit

The hat in this file should be black, as opposed to purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarumHill (talk • contribs)

@SarumHill: You are entirely right. I'm not sure why I forgot that, but I have corrected it as soon as I saw your message. Tom-L (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dutch FilmEdit

It's great, thanks for your notice. There's a trendy about historical people, in Spain there's one about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor [1]. During Charles's arrival the arms of the County of Flanders are shown, and two of the main characters are Dutch, Adrian of Utrecht (pope Adrian VI) and Willem II van Croÿ. Best regards and sorry for being late with my answer.--Heralder (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Imaginary" heraldryEdit

What advantage does "imaginary heraldry" have over "attributed arms" and "fictional coats of arms"?? Frankly, you would have done better to just leave well-enough alone -- or at least discuss the matter, before proceeding unilaterally.. AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos:: The advantage is that Ssire was largely right back then. I came recently across various references to the term "imaginary heraldry", as Ssire used it (and French wikipedia), more so than attributed arms (which seems to be a more functional description than actual term is most cases), and I likewise saw the term "attributed arms" applied to post-heraldic figures and modern literature. Furthermore, the previous overlapping categorization has not been touched for a long time, and remained a confusing mess. This change simply avoids the controversial terminology in the first place.
The difference with Category:Fictional coats of arms is that "fictional" is much broader, and its broader meaning is covered by Category:Special or fictional coats of arms so the current content of that category is rather ambiguous. Imaginary heraldry doesn’t include the arms of micronations, proposed coats of arms or fictional variations on coats of arms of actual countries. Those are also topics generally ignored by most authors on heraldry, for better or for worse, whereas "imaginary heraldry" is an attested term. The unambiguous meaning of “attributed” remains in new categories such as Category:Coats of arms attributed to Biblical figures‎, which should also help distinguish between the different sorts of attributed/imaginary heraldry without anything that may be considered irrelevant "polluting" other categories.
Edit: Also, with the new subcategorization I aimed specifically to make my changes to the broader categories reversible more easily (so one wouldn't have to recategorize all the files, and the modern literature thing can be done with cat-a-lot). Tom-L (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
However, Ssire was twisting and turning and denying and being disingenuous with the goal of grouping his beloved "Clochemerdure" (a failed attempt at humor less than a century old) together with 15th-century manuscript coats of arms of King Arthur -- without any distinction being made between them -- so it's difficult to say in what sense he was "right". In any case, Category names are supposed to be in English, and "Imaginary heraldry" is not the most accepted or commonly-used term in English. Where you created NEW categories, they mostly seem to be good ideas, but where you RENAMED existing categories, the new names mostly do not seem to be improvements, and I wish you had consulted with others about the matter first. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The previous situation was that there were two overlapping categories, a status quo that was very confusing: “modern attributed arms” and "fictional heraldry from modern literature". Imaginary heraldry and attributed heraldry are used interchangeably, and in more modern works the term "fictional heraldry" seems to pop up every now and then describing the same thing, and the delimitation in time is not attested by all authors. It was in that sense he was right. Now, I would certainly not object to going back to the "Attributed Arms/Heraldry" term, but I would really prefer that "modern attributed arms" and "fictional heraldry from modern literature" remain in one category that has a name that is acceptable to Ssire.
Would you be okay with changing Category:Imaginary heraldry back to Category:Attributed arms plus the SVG category, but keeping Category:Imaginary heraldry from modern literature (or Attributed heraldry from modern literature) as a subcategory? Tom-L (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, nothing is acceptable to Ssire except grouping together "Clochemerdure" with medieval/renaissance stuff without any distinction. I think that the basic contrast between "Attributed arms" and "Fictional coats of arms from modern literature" was a good one. The category "Modern attributed arms" was created solely to appease Ssire, but then he didn't find it good enough for his beloved "Clochemerdure". I never saw much point in it except maybe for one or two files (such as the non-official arms of Marshal Foch). AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
With the new categories I have created, I think they can coexist as subcategories without polluting eachother. For what it's worth, if we go back to "Attributed Arms" for the main category, and keep "Imaginary Heraldry" for the literature etc. it can be treated as a fancier term for fictional heraldry (which it is), while still having a certain contrast, and a term analoguous to the French "Héraldique imaginaire" (which it also is). Tom-L (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Which ducal?Edit

Hello Tom! Here is some text from the decree of July 2 1951 when Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg elevated three former Swedish princes of royalty (then each called Mr Bernadotte) into the nobility of her country as Princes Bernadotte and Counts of Wisborg. The full wording of her decree has been unknown until recently. The English translation here has simplified heraldic terms.

  • We admit into the Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Our said dear cousin Sigvard Oscar Frederick Prince Bernadotte and His wife, Our said dear cousin Carl Johan Arthur Prince Bernadotte and His wife, Our said dear cousin Gustaf Lennart Nicolaus Paul Prince Bernadotte and His wife as well as their descendants of both sexes, born and to be born of legal marriage, and We confer additionally upon Them the title of Count and Countess of Wisborg, to be borne by Them and by all Their legitimate descendants, in all places and in all matters;
  • And so that said Princes and Princesses Bernadotte and Their descendants enjoy without disorder in the dignity of Nobles of Our Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the title of Count and Countess of Wisborg which We have conferred upon them, they use a coat of arms as described and fashioned in the aforementioned order of 2 April 1892: Divided in three by a cross patty of yellow reversed; on the left, divided in three in bands of blue, white and red with a withy of yellow bound and taped in same; on the right, on blue a bridge of three arches white, supporting two towers and moving on a river of same, surmounted by a black eagle grasping yellow lightening horizontally and accompanied above by seven stars of same, forming the constellation of the Great Bear; below, on blue, a white Paschal Lamb passing; the escutcheon surmounted by the ducal coronet such as it actually is borne by the Princes and Princesses Bernadotte, which for their descendants shall be replaced by a coronet of a Count;
  • We ask all Sovereigns and Princes and hereby summon and enjoin the Courts and Tribunals, authorities and public officials and officers of Our Grand Duchy, both for the present and the future, to recognize the said Princes and Princesses Bernadotte as well as Their legitimate descendants as belonging to the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and to attribute Them the titles and qualifications which they own by virtue of this.

Do you think it's correct to use a continental coronet familiar to BeNeLux in this case, as has been done here, since the coronet is awarded by Luxembourg, not by Sweden where these three men never officially were called Prince Bernadotte, or would it be more appropriate - and would it even be acceptable? - to use a Swedish design such as yours in arms granted by Luxembourg, not Sweden? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. Serge has asked me to comment on this question, so I'd like to chime in. The blazon reads "the escutcheon surmounted by the ducal coronet such as it actually is borne by the Princes and Princesses Bernadotte" (my emphasis). So the style would be Swedish, and actually you can see an official rendition of the arms and coronet here (p. 291). The arms of the princes and princesses of House Bernadotte can be found at Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte and all of them use the Swedish coronet. Whether to add the blue bonnet is purely optional and should be left to the artist, but per the blazon, the ducal crown should somewhat resemble the one that is still being borne by the current Duchess of Östergötland (aka Princess Estelle). De728631 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It is clear to me what arms have been approved and used in Sweden (such as on Swedish page 291 you mentioned), but it is till not clear to me why arms issued in Luxembourg would not have a ducal coronet of a continental (BeNeLux) style. Have you ever seen Dutch or Belgian or British or Spanish arms with a crown or coronet in the fashion of another country? I can't find anything like that. The type of crown or coronet used typically shows the nationality of the royal or noble person - British-style coronets for the British, Spanish for the Spaniards, etc. - doesn't it? Couldn't Charlotte by "actually" have meant that these men when they became princes in the nobility of Luxembourg (NOTE: they were not royal anywhere) should have a ducal coronet (Luxembourg style) in their arms rather than the coronet of a prince (Luxembourg style) ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
PS Wouldn't she, if she had meant Prince Oscar Bernadotte's arms specifically, have named him right there in her text, rather than just mentioning the rank (Luxembourg style) of the coronet to be used, ducal, not princely, for noble (not royal) Princes Bernadotte? (Also see en:Prince Carl Bernadotte). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You should consider that the Swedish princes while being "Princes of Sweden" don't have princely arms as such and are officially styled as dukes. E. g. Princess Victoria is the Duchess of Västergötland, Prince Carl Philip is the of Duke of Värmland, etc. The same system applies to the UK, where Prince Philip, consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is formally styled the Duke of Edinburgh (although they do have the Prince of Wales as a title for the heir apparent). Therefore the Swedish princes use to have ducal coronets in their arms. And since the blazon issued in Luxembourg mentiones the coronets as they are usually borne, the only possibility is that this refers to the style of their home country. However, if you can find examples that the Princes and Princesses of Sweden have different depictions of their arms to bear in different countries, please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, De728631: The interpretation of De728631 appears to be the most logical, though I want to stress that I am no expert on either Swedish or Luxembourgian heraldry. I would think that if the Luxembourgian ducal coronet was meant, it would have been mentioned specifically. Tom-L (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see new subsection "New findings" here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Has this discussion been moved to the file talk page of your reference ? --OSeveno (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Tom-L".