Talk:Coat of arms of Montenegro

Montenegro Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro 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.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology Start‑class

	Heraldry portal Coat of arms of Montenegro 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Archives

1

where is coat of arms from SFRY period?

Stefke 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see it. last time i saw it on some editions months ago.Stefke 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAX< Why was previous one article wrong? This article needs same formula like flag articleStefke 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

Stefke, why are you know suddenly introducing all the coats? I thought I would only introduce the historical origin of the modern one, not all of them - and some aren't even quite Montenegrin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you sure that the coat of arms was banned in the kingdom? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's New Year present from me! Well as you see I've spent hours scaning and photoshoping. All those coat of arms (and descriptions) I found are from book "Crnogorski drzavni i dinasticki grbovi" by dr. Djordje Borozan. There are even more CoA to be uploaded, but let's discuss about theese what are now. As you know there is no other page for displaying CoA like it was case with flags, where was 2.

And yes, as well as all other Montenegrin symbols.Stefke (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include just the historical origin, as you wanted on the Flags article?

Not that I don't believe you, but is there any source of that in specific? And what other symbols? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

That's why I suggest only to add the Coats of Arms of its precise origin.

Now, some corrections:

1) the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom was not the one shown. The depicted was the Coat of Arms of the Princely Dome.
2) The ruler's Coat of Arms of Nicholas was not that which it is depicted - that was the Kingdom's state coat of arms.
3) The Princely Ruler's Coat of Arms of Nicholas is actually the royal - the princely only had a different crown (ordinary, not Imperial)
4) That was all but the Ruler's Coat of Arms of Danilo. The wings weren't stripe, there were straight, there was nothing in the background of the silver bicephalic eagle, on the red shield were Danil's initials "ДI" and the lion was beneath
5) That was not the Coat of Arms of the Princedom of Montenegro. The correct on is in the corresponding article (the eagle was white and the shield completely red).
6) That is not a simple "Coat of Arms of Montenegro" - That is the coat of arms from the Medal for Courage 1841 and the background of the shield was most probably red (and not blue) on top of green ground; also we can only guess what color was the eagle supposed to be, but there is not sufficient data for that
7) The Coat of Arms of Peter I Petrovic-Njegos has nothing to do with what it really was. The lion was not inside it, it was beneath it, while a Cross was on the chest.
8) Even Sava's Coat of Arms is incorrect, there were not two crowns - but one common on top of both.
9) I have no knowledge of a Coat of Arms in Vasilije's time, but the inside of Danilo's double-headed eagle is not quite correct.
10) Some Crnojevic coats of arms were golden, but others where white
11) The second from the left is a new fiction, from the numerous Illyrian false depictions and as never used, shouldn't be here either
12) The same is with both versions of the Balsics' coats of arms
13) ..as well as the completely fictive "PRIMORDIAE" Coat of Arms which was only used by Serbian solders in Austrian service and then in the First Serbian Uprising; it's actually a copy of the alleged Herzegovinian Coat of Arms from the early Ohmucevic's, also invented --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... 1- Yes I agree. Let’s substitute it with one at the Kingdom of Montenegro Article.

2- There is slight difference with those 2 Coa: position of lion. Do you think I substituted them?

3- Well, when Montenegro was princedom it had King's crown, when was Kingdom it had Tsar's crown. Freaky, but true :)

4- Danilo added on CoA from Njegos's time red shield in the background and sword in same place where scepter was. The nickname for this CoA is because of that "war CoA of Montenegro". THIS WAS STATE COA, until Prince Nicholas removed sword, and let some red elements on shield.

5- It was state CoA, before constitution and international reorganization of Montenegro. Than Nicholas changed that colors gold-> silver (not white); and red shield.

6- I don't understand no. 6, about what was that question?

7- Description of CoA: This coa is the root of other heraldic coa this one was further modified. Central motive on state coa (during Petar I) is golden 2-headed eagle with high raised wings, wide feather with crown between heads and scepter and orb. On the chest of eagle is shield with golden lion in the pass. Lion is on green surface with blue background. Behind is red banner with golden rope and crown.

8- Yes, 2 crowns: one symbolizes theocratic, another state rule.

9- During Danilo's time was this CoA, but also is known another, baroque Greater CoA and this is the central motive of it. On great CoA you may see a lot of weapons, swords, guns, drums, papers around this one.

10- Golden or not, I had only those to upload.

11- Which one you talked about??

12- What is wrong about Balsic CoA? Is it same like on House of Balsic page? Those are even in history books.

13- Do you mean about red with hand and curved sword? That was Littoral Coa from XII c, during rule of House of Nemanjic. It's also known as Donja Zeta before Venice rule.

another question, do you think it's Biblical lion same as lion in the pass? Stefke (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Yep.

3) Substituted here too.

4) ..and was silver (white)

5) The Only Montenegrin State Coat of Arms of the Princedom was the one sanctioned in the 1905 Constitution. It's also the same (white) under which the Princedom of Montenegro was recognized as an independent state in 1878.

6) About the Coat of Arms during Peter II Petrovic-Njegos.

7) Where did you get that description? I can guarantee you that it's false. The lion was for the first time positioned on the Coat of Arms by Peter II, which was introduced in 1852 by Danilo (when Montenegro was secularized as a state).

8) No, that is false. I'm gonna make you a suggestion: go to Budva and see the Monastery of Podmaine (Podostrog). The great church in the monastery's complex was built by Sava in 1747. Take a look at the well, which was built during Sava's reign. There is a four-storied stoned fence around it. On it, is the sole presentation of the Coat of Arms in Danilo's time. Danilo introduced drastic changes, making it very different from the previous CoAs. First of all, it no longer seems as if it's a two-headed eagle, but two eagles merged into one rather. Second of all, he introduced a single crown above both heads, rather than two on top of each head. The final addition is the snake in the eagle's claws. This is one of the main reason why I criticize his Grbovnik (just like I said before). If you don't believe me and can't go to Budva, I believe I could upload a photograph of the fence.

9) Yes, now I remember. You're right on this one.

About the others those are from the numerous Illyrian interpretations, they're OK but not authentic.

No. Intertwined? Yes. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crnojeviccoa.jpg

Image:Crnojeviccoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GrbRep.jpg

Image:GrbRep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So italics for latin and ordinary text for cyrillic?

Stop doing that and removing Federal State of Montenegro. -- Imbris (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia's standard policy. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

official presentation of montenegro - I think this text should replace this long HISTORY article

COAT OF ARMS

The history of the state coat of arms begins with the Crnojevics dynasty in 15th century. Their family arms - golden crowned two-headed eagle on the red background - laid the foundation of the Montenegrin state heraldry: the two-headed eagle became the standard symbol of the state. After gaining the power, the Petrovic-Njegos dynasty took the golden two-headed eagle as the state symbol. Vladika Danilo charged on its breast the Great Arms of the Petrovic-Njegos family (shield, crown, mantling), while his successor vladika Sava made major changes to the coat of arms: removed the family Great Arms from the eagle's breast, and added the scepter and saru ("the imperial egg") in its claws. He also added another symbol retained until present day - the golden lion passant - below the golden eagle. With Petar I, further rearrangement of the coat of arms took place: from the eagle he removed the royal insignia and charged on the eagle's breast the Middle Arms of the Petrovic-Njegoss (the shield with the crown) while leaving the lion passant.

Prince Danilo also reorganized the Coat of Arms: he charged on the golden eagle's breast the shield where on the blue background the golden lion passant was on green ground. In one claw the eagle held the orb, and in the other a sword and the scepter.

In the time of prince then king Nikola, the sword was removed and later, in conformity with the Constitution of 1905, the color of the eagle was changed from golden to silver as well as the of the background of the shield with the lion - to red instead of blue.

The Constitution of 1993 maintained "the tradition" of king Nikola: the adopted Coat of Arms was a crowned silver eagle with the orb in one and the scepter in the other claw, and charged on its breast was a red shield with the lion passant.

http://www.me/english/podaci/symbols.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs improvement

- Certain parts are literal translations of Montenegrin texts (the National Symbols Act) and do not work well in this setting. For example, the description of the coat of arms is misleading. It says "on a red base" while the original meaning is "on a red background". These are not synonyms in a heraldic context. Another example is the "Use" segment. This is copied from the Act but this fact is not mentioned even though it is important in understanding the context. Also, I don't think that this much detail in the "Use" segment is justified.

- The "General" segment should be renamed to "Description" and the "Description of the coat of arms" should be removed and the blazon put underneath the image instead. Check the article about the Coat of arms of Russia to see what I mean.

- The image shown here is NOT the coat of arms of Montenegro. The description of the coat of arms can be found in the National Symbols Act (in Montenegrin/Serbian) and states that the eagle is on a "red background" which is not shown in the image. This annihilates the point that the coat of arms is heraldically wrong on the grounds of containing regalia. It is just as valid as that of Russia and Poland. Why is the full image not used in practice is beyond my understanding.

I am new to Wikipedia, but I will help fixing these and any other issues to the best of my abilities. 幾何學家 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Coat of arms of the Republic of Montenegro (1993/4-2004)

The bronze color should be replaced with gold/yellow and the blue and red should also be changed, the colors of the flag of Montenegro from 1992 to 1994, since this was the official/most used version of the coat of arms of the Republic of Montenegro

Source:http://web.archive.org/web/20090907090741/http://www.montenegro.yu/english/podaci/symbols.htm --DarkoRatic (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]