Talk:Coat of arms of the City of London

Date of the Legend regarding the Peasant's Revolt

Although the article states that the legend connecting the sword on the coat of arms with the Peasant's Revolt is from the late seventeenth century, the legend is related in George Peele's 1593 play, The Life and Death of Jack Straw, one hundred years earlier. Do the sources cited claim that the legend started in the 16th or 17th century? --Bee King (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The dagger is stated in the Holinshed Chronicle 1577 "Moreouer, the K. granted, that there ſhoulde be a dagger added to the armes of the citie of Lõ|don, in the right quarter of the ſhield, for an aug|mentation of the ſame armes, and for a remem|brance of this Maior, his valiãt acte, as doth ap|peare vnto this daye, for till that time, the Citie bare only the Croſſe, without the dagger". Where does The 17th of April date come from. Is it when the mayor who killed Watte Tyler was appointed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.167.104 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the reference to Holinshed, and amended the wording of the text accordingly. 17 April is the date on which an order was given that the old City seal should be broken up (see here). I'm unsure if there is any irrefutable evidence for the first appearance of the new seal, but all the more reliable sources say that it was introduced well before the death of Tyler on 15 June. GrindtXX (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of the City of London. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927154602/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65DC8039-12C4-4AC4-8DAD-16F1608E99B7/0/cityarms.PDF to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65DC8039-12C4-4AC4-8DAD-16F1608E99B7/0/cityarms.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

simplified?

This logo used by the city is based on the arms but is simplified compared to the blazon.

The tinctures of the crest, mantling and supporters are altered, but "simplified" is an odd way to say that. —Tamfang (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved without prejudice to restore the original titles. Anyone may initiate RMs in the opposite direction at any time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• Coat of arms of the City of London Corporation → Coat of arms of the City of London
• Coat of arms of the City of Edinburgh Council → Coat of arms of Edinburgh
• Coat of arms of Glasgow City Council → Coat of arms of Glasgow
• Coat of arms of Birmingham City Council → Coat of arms of Birmingham
• Coat of arms of the City of York Council → Coat of arms of York
• Coat of arms of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council → Coat of arms of Bradford
• Coat of arms of Colchester City Council → Coat of arms of Colchester
• Coat of arms of Greater Manchester County Council → Coat of arms of Greater Manchester
• Coat of arms of Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council → Coat of arms of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

– Requesting reversion of several undiscussed moves performed by A.D.Hope. A.D. notes that the coats of arms referred to above properly belong to the relevant municipal authorities; this is true, but his insistence that the word "council" be included in the article titles is needlessly pedantic. If we were to apply his logic consistently, then we would have to rename a whole swathe of articles (coat of arms of Paris, coat of arms of Berlin, seal of New York City, etc. etc.). Zacwill (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• oppose as mover. These coats of arms belong to specific local government bodies, not the cities or counties they govern in general, and the page titles should reflect this. Reverting the titles would result in a loss of precision (see WP:CRITERIA) and could give the false impression that British geographic entities can be granted a coat of arms. The logic applied to these articles does not inherently apply to the articles about Paris, Berlin, or New York, etc. as they are not in the UK. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox-Davies, the foremost writer on British heraldry, did not have any qualms about referring to "the arms of Edinburgh" or "the arms of the City of London". Again, you are being pedantic. Zacwill (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether something is pedantic or not is largely a matter of opinion. In this case, making the distinction that arms are granted to corporate bodies rather than areas is one which I believe is worth making. Fox-Davies clearly thought differently, but while he is a prominent heraldist his opinion isn't law. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be helpful to look at sources about British civic arms specifically, rather than heraldry generally.

I've been trying to find online copies of C. Wilfrid Scott-Giles' Civic Heraldry of England and Wales and Geoffrey Briggs' Civic and Corporate Heraldry, and I'm afraid the linked sales listings might have to do. As far as I can tell both works refer to arms as belonging to corporate bodies, not areas.

Another source is Fox-Davies' Book of Public Arms. I can't quite work out his system, as he refers to arms as belonging to both corporate bodies (e.g. 'Aberdeen, The Council of the County of', p.2) and settlements (e.g. 'Chichester', p.176). For our purposes, however, it should be simple enough to work out whether a particular coat of arms has been granted to a corporate body or not.

A.D.Hope (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Coat of arms of the City of London → Coat of arms of the City of London Corporation – The arms belong to the corporation, not the city as an area, and reflecting this in the title will allow the use of more natural language in the article. For example, rather than 'The coat of arms of the City of London is the coat of arms used by the City of London Corporation' we can simply use 'The coat of arms of the City of London Corporation...'. It removes the need to clarify the body the arms belong to.

When it comes to sources, so far as I can tell there therefore isn't a single approach among heraldic writers. C. Wilfrid Scott-Giles' Civic Heraldry of England and Wales treats arms as belonging to a corporate entity. Geoffrey Briggs' Civic and Corporate Heraldry seems to take a mixed approach, as does Fox-Davies in his Book of Public Arms.

There is some justification for referring to civic arms as the 'coat of arms of [area]', but for our purposes 'coat of arms of [council of area]' allows for more natural wording and therefore makes it easier for readers to understand the topic of the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons referred to in the previous move discussion. I note, by the way, that you are the one who introduced the awkward wording of which you complain into the article. Zacwill (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  The previous wording was "The coat of arms of the City of London is the official coat of arms of the City of London, England, which is one of a number of cities and boroughs in Greater London." Do you think the article should revert to this wording? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither is satisfactory (per MOS:REDUNDANCY). Much better would be: "The coat of arms of the City of London dates back to the 14th century and consists of a cross cantoned by a sword" etc. etc. Zacwill (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The arms are those of the City of London Corporation, not the City of London, and this needs to be explained clearly in the lead sentence. The current redundancy is an attempt to do so while incorporating the article title, which is a necessity. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The armiger of (for example) the coat of arms of Madrid is the City Council of Madrid. Should the lead in that article be rewritten to say "The coat of arms of Madrid is the coat of arms used by the City Council of Madrid"? Zacwill (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact legal situation in Spain; while this move request could be used as precedent for other articles about British civic arms, it's ultimately about this particular article.

We seem to be re-treading the previous move discussion, so if there's nothing new to add I think it's best if we leave room for other editors to comment. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, the first sentence of an article should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. Zacwill's suggestion doesn't do that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. While A.D.Hope is, of course, technically correct (that the arms are those of the corporation, not the area), even he admits that heraldic authorities are "mixed" in their approach, and certainly the arms are widely described and perceived as belonging to the City as a whole, not just specifically the corporation: for example, in the London Archives own research guide (cited in the article); or in numerous other reputable publications such as here or here. When Wenceslaus Hollar put the arms at the centre of his Long View of London from Bankside, he clearly intended them to represent the place, not its government, and there are many other examples elsewhere. The dragon boundary marks are widely perceived as marking the boundaries of the City, not the jurisdiction of the Corporation. Given all that, I would have thought that both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE apply, and that we should stick with the shorter form of title. I see nothing seriously objectionable in the lead sentence as it currently stands. GrindtXX (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.