Talk:Armorial of the House of Plantagenet

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Armorial of the House of Plantagenet 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

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

I gave this a B rating but it looks good to me. Might need some introductory material, but I'm not familiar with these types of articles on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tressure of France?

“

The Royal arms to this day continue to show the lillies of France, but only as a part of the double tressure flory counterflory gules of the quartered arms of Scotland.

”

I revert this because it is misleading on two points. Not all fleurs-de-lis allude to France, and there is no consensus that the Scottish tressure has a French origin. Secondly, the word continue implies that the Scottish tressure has something to do with the Plantagenet claim on France! —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree with your reasoning. Perhaps rephrased it might provide extra interest/element of curiosity to the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This title more accurately reflects the contents of this list. This is not an article about a notable published roll of arms; this is a list of coats of arms which in itself represents a roll of arms (or armorial). Thus, "List of coats of arms" is a more accurate indication of what may be found here. Also, Plantagenet in this context is rather vague, "House of Plantagenet" is more precise. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move, but I know very little about the subject matter. Somehow Capetian Armorial has gotten onto my watchlist, and it always seems incomplete to me--there isn't an introduction explaining what it's all about. If it's merely a list, it should be called a list. On the other hand, it seems to be more than a mere list, with illustrations, etc. Maybe the renames should be to "Coats of Arms of XXX". If the three-part renaming is not done, at least make Capetian Armorial into "Armorial of YYY", and explain what an armorial is. Lou Sander (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou! It isn't at all unusual for list-class articles (usually titled "List of...") to have some introductory text. A lead section can be useful to introduce and define the topic and scope of the list, often with a link to a main article. See List of sovereign states for an example of a list-class article which requires some technical definition of its scope and criteria for inclusion. These lists are a little more straight-forward in that respect, but since the topics of these lists are the coats of arms themselves, the images here are integral to the list itself. But we also have many other lists with illustrations for each entry (see List of Missouri state symbols or Carnival Cruise Lines for examples). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like Wilhelm said, "Plantagenet Amorial" or "Armorial of Plantagenet" makes it seem like this list is an otherwise notable armorial or roll of arms, when it's really just an interesting list crafted by Wikipedians. Unless we're duplicating a legit "Plantagenet Amorial", I think "List of coats of arms ..." is a better title.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Warenne earls

The page currently indicates it is a list of arms held by the descendants of GP in the male line. If so, it should include the cheque coat of the Warenne earls, descended from Geoffrey's son Hamelin. Otherwise the introductory description should be tweaked to exclude them. From a genealogical perspective they belong here as Geoffrey's descendants, but from a heraldic perspective they don't as they do not show continuity with the lion motif of the Plantagenets, adopting the coat (and surname) of Hamelin's father-in-law. Agricolae (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I just uploaded my rewrite of the article as of 1st of October 2013. Some of the new things I added:

Include as many Plantagenets as I can starting with Geoffrey of Anjou and ending with Henry Tudor.
Introduced a key code denoting the relationships of the various armigerous individuals.
Divide the tables into the House and then into reigns, and members according to their relationship with successive monarchs.

Notices and explanations:

Some individuals are repeated, there is a good reason for this, usually because they bore different arms at different times. Such as Henry V.
I have excluded many daughters, this is because they are not technically allowed to bear arms of their own. This is an article about heraldry after all and not a complete genealogy. When they are included sometimes I use their married arms (father impaled with husband) to represent them. And of course I included the more important ladies, usually those who play significant roles in history (i.e. Margaret Pole).
I have only included shield of arms (arms) only, because the complete coat of arms did not come into regular use until at least the Tudor period. Personalised badges, supporters and crests; are not inherited inasmuch as a shield of arms, where line of descent can be traced. Shields are borne by right of blood, unlike the other features which are personal choices. This just makes the article less complicated.
I have excluded numbers in front of peerage titles (i.e. 1st Duke of York, 2nd Duke of Kent) because they do not help in distinguishing the individuals because these titles also need to include the order of creation (Duke of Gloucester. Third creation) to really distinguish them apart. The date of birth and death and the wiki-links to their article should be enough for the lay reader to differentiate between them.

Please help me improve the article, all suggestions welcome. Sodacan (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am not a fan of some of the changes. It includes arms of people who are not generally considered to be of the House of Plantagenet even by a liberal interpretation (e.g. random wives), it shows completely made-up arms for Henry II and his wife (there isn't the slightest shred of evidence as to what coat he bore, and hers is groundless) and for Richard I, it has eliminated the actual historically documented arms - those without tincture, in favor of a list of speculative arms that cannot be supported in terms of the tinctures. Yes, having Richard's coats colored makes it look all nice and pretty, but it is farther from the historical record. Agricolae (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blazons don't match

I noticed a couple places where the blazon does not match the emblazonment.

Margaret Wake, Baroness Wake of Liddell. The image is "Barry of six Or and Gules, in chief three torteaux" but the blazon given is "Or, two bars Gules, in chief three torteaux".
Anne Mortimer, Countess of Cambridge. The blazon includes "France ancien" but the image shows "France modern".

Indefatigable (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple other Ancien/moderne mismatches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.51.24 (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

moderne or ancien

I am having a serious problem with France ancien or moderne. Is it possible that when Henry IV changed the arms to three fleurs-de-lys in 1406, all living bearers of France ancien just switched to France moderne, so we could have a clear cut depiction of arms? Reigen (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Henry VI

The blazon given for Henry VI here in note 50 refers to Pinches, J.H & R.V., p. 97, which actually reads: "The arms of Henry VI, which remained the same as his father's, were Quarterly, France modern and England." Are there any other sources for the blazon as it is given here? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.167.245 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]