Talk:Coat of arms of Ireland

early blazon

A commission of Edward IV into the arms of Ireland found them to be blazoned: Azure, three crowns Or, bordure Argent in pale.

Really? I didn't know a bordure could be in pale. Early blazon was sometimes sloppy but this goes a bit far. Do the cited sources really give exactly that language? —Tamfang (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they were the arms of Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, and an unusual blazon indicated an unusually successful courtier. Despite his early death his arms seem to have carried on as the arms of the Lordship, and why not.86.42.207.224 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent typo. I've fixed it. --RA (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

altered and rearranged?

It has appeared in the third quarter of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom since the Union of the Crowns of Ireland and England to that of Scotland by James VI of Scotland in March 1603. Over the years this harp was altered and rearranged representing the various changes in the political status quo ....

It was moved in 1707 from the third quarter to the third quarter; then in 1714 it was moved from the third quarter to the third quarter; then in 1801 it was moved from the third quarter to the third quarter; and finally in 1837 it was moved from the third quarter to the third quarter. Did I miss any significant changes? —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that the harp - always in the same quarter - was redesigned with/without a head and breasts. Nothing to do with political changes as far as anyone can tell, just style and fashion.86.42.207.224 (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Cromwell's Commonwealth didn't mind the harp with breasts, even though we think of him as a censorious Puritan.86.42.207.224 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The word rearranged is what threw me. How about something like The design of the harp has varied in its artistic details ? —Tamfang (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In heraldry the details of the design don't really matter. As long as what the artist depicts is clearly a gold harp with silver strings it still counts. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest otherwise? —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Ireland image is dubious

The image depicted of the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Ireland is ahistorical and a creation by its author based on his interpretation of a coat of arms motif that appears on The Custom House completed in 1791 in Dublin. While a gold harp on a blue shield with a crown surmounting the shield was sometimes used by the government in Ireland, the stonework on this building that portrays the shield of Ireland in a stylistic way with the supporters for England (a lion) and Scotland (a unicorn) is simply heraldic artwork and not a proper coat of arms of the said kingdom. The Kingdom of Ireland created by Henry VIII never had its own unique royal coat of arms. i.e. a full armorial achievement. After 1603 and the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland, the royal arms of James I of England (James VI of Scotland) did include a harp for Ireland in the third quarter. the image in question is loosely based on the current UK royal arms. It was created by simply placing the shield for Ireland as the sole shield and retaining the Order of the Garter collar, St Edward's Crown, supporters and royal motto of the current UK coat of arms (which is not in this depiction in its the full armorial achievement format as it is missing the helm, crest and compartment). It is noteworthy that the creator refers to the crown as the "imperial crown" - which is anachronistic as there was no British Empire during the Kingdom of Ireland period. While I think the creator was sincere in thinking this was indeed the historical coat of arms for the Kingdom of Ireland from 1541 until the Act of Union 1801, Ireland - unlike Scotland - did not have its own royal coat of arms during this period. When the then Anglo-Irish parliament met for the last time before the Union of 1801, it did not request a separate royal coat of arms for use in Ireland as Scotland did almost a century before in the Act of Union 1707. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I would be most interested to learn about it. Jm3106jr (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave essentially the same response to the author when the image was added to the Kingdom of Ireland page. It is a work of artistic styalising, and not part of the arms. --RA (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No armiger on registration

I may be mistaken about the armiger being the Government of Ireland. I believed I had read that somewhere. However, oddly, the 1945 registration doesn't give an armiger. Where it normally would, it gives simply, Arms of Ireland. See regisration.

Any ideas? I'm thinking of emailing the Chief Hearld's Office for clarification. If it went through OTRS we may be able to cite them. --RA (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm proposing that Presidential Standard (Ireland) be merged in to Coat of arms of Ireland on account that they both discuss the same thing and because the presidential standard article is a stub. The standard article could be simply merged in as a new section. --RA (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Flags are not coats of arms. -- Evertype·✆ 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Standards (or a banner in this case) are. In this case, they are essentially the same thing and one article is a stub. --RA (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, for same reason - flags and arms are separate things Zymurgy (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge: It's already has its own section in Coat of arms of Ireland and due to its brevity is hardly worth having a separate article, so the section will only increase by around 50%. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2011 (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.

Wikipedia is not the place for extreme nationalism.

The Armiger section needs to be "Republic of Ireland" for several reasons. The first and most important being these are the Arms of the State, not the island. As all of Ireland is not united, the distinction must be made. Per the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, "Republic of Ireland" is the description of the State, so it is perfectly correct. Furthurmore, the Wikipedia article for the country is "Republic of Ireland" (for the same reasons as listed above), and it must be kept in continuity. I support a united Ireland, but Wikipedia is not the place to force your nationalistic views. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know to whom the above is addressed, but I would suggest the editor takes a look at WP:IRE-IRL. Hohenloh ⁺ 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no need for hyperbole. The (common, official and universally accepted) name of the Irish state is simply Ireland (see Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, here). The article on the state is at Republic of Ireland owing to limitations of the Wikimedia software, no more reason. On occasions, because both the state and the island are called Ireland, it is necessary to make a distinction, for clarity's sake, between the two in text. On those occasions, Republic of Ireland or island of Ireland (depending on context) are useful means to do so. However, there is no need to do so here. There is no great risk of confusion nor no great consequence should someone do so.

At a simple level, these arms are registered as the "Arms of Ireland" (see registration), not the "Arms of the Republic of Ireland". Thus, "Ireland" is the armiger, not "Republic of Ireland".

In a broader context too (aside from the strict armiger), "Ireland" is the more appropriate name for the thing these arms represent. It is "Ireland", for example, that is represented by them in the third quadrant of the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, not "Republic of Ireland". Indeed, the official blazon of those arms even explicitly names "Ireland" as such: "...third quarter Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland), ..." You would not expect British royal heralds to be the harbinger of "extreme [Irish] nationalism", would you? --RA (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The file on this page was specifically designed and adopted as the coat of arms of the independent Republic, not the island as a whole. That's nowhere near the same thing as the UK arms containing a harp representing all of Ireland. Infact, the UK is very specific in stating the harp in the UK arms represents Northern Ireland, not just "Ireland", and it's been that way since 1922 when Southern Ireland became an independent dominion (and later republic). The main article of the country is the Republic of Ireland, and as this file is the coat of arms of that country, the armiger must be the same. To specifically alter the link from [Republic of Ireland] to [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] asserts these are the arms of the whole island as if it was united, and that is a form of nationalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Infact, the UK is very specific in stating the harp in the UK arms represents Northern Ireland, not just "Ireland",..." From the official website of the British monarch: "In the design the shield shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: ... The harp of Ireland is in the third quarter." (See here.) Not very specific there, eh?

"The main article of the country is the Republic of Ireland, and as this file is the coat of arms of that country, the armiger must be the same." A case of Wikipedia dictating reality, rather then reality dictating Wikipedia. In reality, the state is called Ireland (both commonly and officially, no-one disputes that) and the arms are registered as the "Arms of Ireland". (I've linked to reference for these above.)

Finally, it is you who altered the link, not Hohenloh or I. You are perfectly entitled to put forward your point of view but please don't attack others while doing so. There is no merit in it and it doesn't win arguments for you. --RA (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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 move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Arms of Ireland → Coat of arms of Ireland – I don't see any reason why the short form "arms" should be used in the title. The proper and precise expression is coat of arms, and that's been consistently used in article names, including those for all the other European national coats of arms. - Relisted. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC). SSJ ^t 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I boldly moved it before per WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. 2,430 vs. 1,010 on Google Books). "Arms of Ireland" is also the official term in this case. --RA (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support this is not about the military armament of Ireland, or the weaponry produced in Ireland. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not all that impressed by the quality of the sources turned up in those Google searches. The lion's share of the first hits are out-of-copyright books or published Wikipedia articles. I tried searches of my own for ones published in the last hundred years: the quality of the books still didn't look all that great to me, but the phrase "Arms of Ireland" seems to be the most common by a fair amount. It'd be cool if someone could show how heraldry-specific sources tend to name them, or how the sources used in the article name them. I'd rather follow the common name in those sources.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Susan Hood uses the term 'arms of Ireland' exclusively, as far as I can see from the 17 pages ref'd at the index under 'Ireland, arms of'. I've seen no ref to, or use of the term 'coat of arms of Ireland' anywhere in the book. RashersTierney (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• support Clarity is also important in article titles. In this case, Arms may have two meanings; and government of Ireland also calls them coat of arms: [1]. In this case, clarity wins.--KarlB (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Anyone interested in this topic knows what it means - adding "coat of" is kind of dumbing down. --Zymurgy (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Would you say that "Coup d'état" is a dumbing down of "Coup"? Using the full term isn't dumbing down IMO. I would agree with you if someone had suggested that the article be renamed "Shield of Ireland", but that's not the case. Using a term that is extremely common and moreover more formal and precise, i.e. coat of arms, isn't a bad idea considering that this is an encyclopedia. - SSJ ^t 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: 'coat of arms' is the common name used and it adds clarity as 'arms' can be confusingly refer to the military of Ireland--Michaela den (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I can determine Arms of... is the common name in this instance. It is also the registered name of the subject of this article. In contrast to other European countries, Ireland does not have any further components in its armorial achievement (e.g. no motto, crest, supporters, etc.), just its arms.
  Additionally, there is a technical difference between a "coat of arms" upon which "arms" appear. From Pimbley's Dictionary of Heraldry, 1908:

  "Arms - Arms or Armories were so called because originally displayed upon defensive arms, and coats of arms because formerly embroidered upon the surcoat or camis worn over the armor. The term coat of arms, once introduced, was afterward retained, even when displayed elsewhere than on the coat. ...."

  "Coat - Coat of arms, Coat-Armor, Cote-Armure, etc. - Originally armorial bearings were embroidered on the surcoat of the wearer. The term is now used for the escutcheon, or shield, when arms are displayed. [For further information on coats of arms see ARMS.]"

  Compare also with Royal Arms of England.
  The argument that "arms of Ireland" could be confused with something to do with the military is bogus (and spectacularly misses the historical point that arms are to do with the military). Arms of XXX invariably is either the article on the heraldic emblems or redirects to it. --RA (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that unambiguously supports a distinction between the shield and the design on the shield. I've also seen coat used for each of the quarters or other subdivisions of a composite –um– shield-design-thing. —Tamfang (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment: The Irish government, in its official communications about Ireland, says: "Emblem: The harp has been regarded as the official symbol or coat of arms of Ireland since medieval times.": [2], [3], [4], etc. --KarlB (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Those are all the same source, the same one that you linked to above, just repeated across different pop-up sites of the Department of Foreign Affairs. You should look into other branches of the State, especially, for example, the National Library of Ireland, which just so happens to incorporate the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. That only refers to the "Arms of Ireland" and nowhere does it refer to a "Coat of Arms of Ireland". --RA (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the European coats of arms have no further achievement. This way of differentiating between "arms" and "coats of arms" is nonsense. - SSJ ^t 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  A distinction is made in the reference provided. --RA (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Huh, well ok. That's strange. Where? At least Germany, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, Switzerland, the Ukraine and the Vatican City don't appear to be on the same page when it comes to that notion. They all have coats of arms, even though they have nothing but escutcheons. - SSJ ^t 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  Look again at the reference. I think you are confusing a side point I made (about the arms of Ireland having no supporters, etc.) with the distinction made by the reference between "arms" and "coat of arms". The reference states the escutcheon is the "coat"; and the "arms" appear on it. It's technical distinction but it does contradict your claim that "coat of arms" is the "proper and precise expression", etc.. Going by the reference, "arms" is the more proper and precise expression, but I accept the two have become conflated over time (hence, possibly, usage elsewhere). --RA (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. RashersTierney (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  The claim that "Arms of Ireland" is most common has so far been based on one google search that has been seriously questioned. Therefore I don't see why WP:COMMONNAME is a valid justification at all. - SSJ ^t 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Please try to keep up. RashersTierney (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Well, yes that's one book, but that doesn't amount to a proof that the complete term, "Coat of arms of Ireland", is less used in general. - SSJ ^t 22:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: to avoid military ambiguity, and for consistency with many other Coat of arms of articles —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support to avoid ambiguity and to add consistency - the coats of arms of many other countries are called "coat of arms" instead of "arms". JIP | Talk 07:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: To me, "arms of Ireland" tends to mean Armalites and suchlike, not heraldry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument that "arms of Ireland" relates to armaments is very lightweight. Search google for "arms of Ireland" and you will have to plough through a lot of pages before you find even one instance of this usage. Why claim ambiguity where there is none - as I said before "arms of Ireland" is something that everyone interested in this will understand --Zymurgy (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This argument is tenuous. "Arms of Ireland" universally refers to the heraldic emblem and the scope for confusion with Munitions of Ireland takes such imagination as to be practically zero. --RA (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

St. Patrick's blue

The article stated "Traditionally, the shade of blue used in the arms is known as St. Patrick's blue." This is incorrect. The colour name comes from the robes of the Order of St. Patrick, and the robes' colour began from the arms, but by the time the label "St Patrick's Blue" was applied it was much lighter. In modern times, other shades of official blue (including the arms and standard) have been called "St Patrick's Blue", unofficially (and perhaps officially — if someone can verifiably source that, it's worth adding). But it was never "traditionally" so. See Talk:St. Patrick's blue#What shade of blue is it?. jnestorius^(talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd attribute the name of both the order and the colour to their the association with Ireland. However, even if the colour is named after the order, surely 230 years is long enough for something to be considered "traditional"?

I don't think there is a specific shade of blue that is "St. Patrick's blue". It's just a name given to blue (of whatever particular shade in any given instance) when associated with Ireland. I don't believe there is no particular exact blue that is so-called "St. Patrick's blue".

"The Young Irelanders used it as well as the Fenians whose green flag often showed the harp in the middle of a sunburst. Indeed the flag was used since the end of the 18th century by Irish nationalists. It is not fully clear whether it was first used by Henry Grattan around 1780 or by the United Irishmen around 1798. The motivation for the selection of the green colour is not clear. Until the middle of the 18th century blue, 'St. Patrick's Blue', was the colour associated with Ireland." — Alan O'Day (ed.), Reactions To Irish Nationalism, 1865-1914, p. 4

--RA (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The figure 230 years presumably you get from the foundation of the Order of St Patrick. However, the name "St Patrick's Blue" is not attested till 1868 in relation to the light blue robes of the order, and is not attested in relation to the colour of the arms until 1945, and rarely since then. So in the statement "traditionally, the shade of blue used in the arms is known as St. Patrick's blue" the word "traditionally" does not mean "since 1782", it means "occasionally, since 1945". The sources cited by O'Day are refuted by Brian Ó Cuiv in The Wearing of the Green. jnestorius^(talk) 23:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ach, it much older that that. Sure just a quick Google can throw up earlier uses, e.g.:

"In historic heraldry the Irish harp, which came to them from the druids, is featured on a blue-green background (St. Patrick's blue), which, however, may be but a reminiscence of the woad-stain used by all colour-loving Celts." — Shane Leslie, The Celt and the World: A Study of the Relation of Celt and Teuton in History, 1917

I particularly like this angry letter from 1914: "Heraldic jargon may record an azure field and the fake color, 'St. Patrick's Blue,' .... [but the] fully accepted color of Ireland at home and the world over is green, and so it will remain." (From here.)

So, no, "traditionally" does not mean "occasionally, since 1945". It may be a bit of paddy whackery — and nobody may agree what shade of blue it actually is — but that's what the colour's called. At least, "traditionally" ... no more than "St. Patrick's cross", mar ea. --RA (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we are disagreeing about the meaning of the word "traditionally". I readily agree that the colour is "sometimes, unofficially" called that. But most people discussing the arms do not call it that. To me the word "tradition" implies a greater consensus and awareness than exists in this instance. I would suggest changing the sentence to "The colour of the field is sometimes called St. Patrick's blue, a name applied to various shades of blue associated with Ireland." jnestorius^(talk) 10:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are disagreeing only over the meaning of the word. Your suggestion makes sense. I'd only strike the word "various" because, while there is no definitive St. Patrick's blue, there is only one concept of "St. Patrick's blue" (if you get my drift). (i.e. "The colour of the field is sometimes called St. Patrick's blue, a name applied to various shades of blue associated with Ireland.") --RA (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. jnestorius^(talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use prior to 1800

These sentences I am dubious of:

Unlike Scotland, Ireland did not request to keep a unique coat of arms when it formed the United Kingdom by uniting with the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1801. Consequently a uniquely Irish coat of arms temporarily disappeared from official use.

More generally, just how much official use was made of the solo Irish arms within Ireland prior to 1800? The English arms were used in Ireland prior to 1800, e.g. Statutes at Large (1765). The Great Seal of Ireland prior to 1800 had the same arms as in England, and continued in use afterwards. (Similarly the regnal number was the same as England; e.g. William III and II was William III, not William I). Fox-Davies distinguishes the "badge of Ireland" (a crowned harp) from the "arms of Ireland", and many uses prior to 1800 seem to be of the crowned-harp rather than the arms (e.g. The Custom House). jnestorius^(talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall a source for that statement, I'll try and dig it up.

WRT the arms of England being use for Ireland, the image you link to is the royal coat of arms, not the arms of England. This is an important point: the arms of Ireland, England and Scotland belong to the sovereign, not to the country. Upon the union of the crowns, the sovereign adopted a new coats of arms, combing all three into one. So, it is not unusual that the arms of Ireland would be seen less frequently on their own in an official context since then. Likewise, we don't usually see the arms of England or Scotland on their own in an official context since then. --RA (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The great seal, by the way, is a different symbol altogether. --RA (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

By "arms of England" I meant "royal coat of arms as used in England , and as opposed to the royal coat of arms as used in Scotland ". I interpreted the statement "Unlike Scotland, Ireland did not request to keep a unique coat of arms when it formed the United Kingdom by uniting with the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1801" as referring to the difference in the royal coat of arms. If that is not the case, what exactly does it mean? jnestorius^(talk) 21:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of my comment above was in reply to you question, "More generally, just how much official use was made of the solo Irish arms within Ireland prior to 1800?"

I think you're right about both sentences. WRT to the first sentence, I can't find a source for it and am dubious of it now too. The distinct quartering of arms in Scotland predates 1707 and was just protected in the act of union. WRT the second sentence, the quartered arms were royal arms both before and after the 1801, so nothing changed. --RA (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the OP of the 'dubious' sentence. The pre-Union Parliament of Ireland which existed between 1297-1800 voted to unite with the Kingdom of Great Britain as of 1st January 1801 - at which time the Dublin parliament ceased to exist. Unlike the Act of Union of 1707 which did indeed protect the distinct quartering in the Royal Coat of Arms for use in Scotland, the Irish Parliament did not ask Westminster for a similar provision for use in Ireland. They would have certainly been aware of the previous 1707 Act. While there may have been no precedence for an Irish quartering, it certainly could have been requested. However, the Irish Rebellion of 1798 which prompted the push to unite the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain thus forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland probably meant that such a request was never entertained. A more accurate wording of my sentence would be, "Unlike Scotland, the Irish Parliament did not request a distinct quartering of the royal arms for use in Ireland as had been included for Scotland in the 1707 Act of Union between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland."Jm3106jr (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for the claim that "the Act of Union of 1707 ... did indeed protect the distinct quartering in the Royal Coat of Arms for use in Scotland"? Checking the Scottish Act and the English Act I find no such provision. The bits relative to flags and seals are "as her Majesty shall think fit":

Article 1

that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom be such as her Majesty shall appoint, and the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew be conjoined, in such Manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land.

Article 24

That from and after the Union, there be one Great Seal for the united Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom; And that the quartering the Arms, and the Rank and Precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland as may best suit the Union, be left to her Majesty: And that in the mean Time, the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the united Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the united Kingdom be used for sealing Writs to elect and summon the Parliament of Great Britain, and for sealing all Treaties with foreign Princes and States, and all Publick Acts, Instruments and Orders of State, which concern the whole united Kingdom, and in all other Matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used: And that a Seal in Scotland after the Union be always kept and made use of in all things relating to private Rights or Grants, which have usually passed the Great Seal of Scotland and which only concern Offices, Grants, Commissions, and private Rights within that Kingdom; and that until such Seal shall be appointed by her Majesty, the present Great Seal of Scotland shall be used for such purposes: And that the Privy Seal, Signet, Casset, Signet of the Justiciary Court, Quarter Seal, and Seals or Courts now used in Scotland be continued; but that the said Seals be altered and adapted to the State of the Union, as her Majesty shall think fit; and the said Seals, and all of them, and the Keepers of them, shall be subject to such Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall hereafter make. And that the Crown, Scepter, and Sword of State, the Records of Parliament, and all other Records, Rolls and Registers whatsoever, both publick and private, general and particular, and Warrants thereof, continue to be kept as they are within that Part of the united Kingdom now called Scotland; and that they shall, remain in all Time coming, notwithstanding the Union.

jnestorius^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Great Seal of Ireland. HC Deb 27 June 1906 vol 159 cc940-1

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the arms represented on the Great Seal of Ireland are those of England, whereas the arms represented on the Great Seals of England and Scotland are those of those countries; and if he will take the necessary steps to have the arms of Ireland, and not those of England, represented on the Irish Great Seal.

MR. BRYCE

I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and am informed that prior to the Union between Great Britain and Ireland the Great Seal of Ireland was similar in general character and design to that of Great Britain, but differed from the latter by bearing the distinguishing mark of a harp crowned; and it would appear that, neither on the passing of the Act of Union nor since, has any change been made in the Great Seal of Ireland, so that this distinguishing mark still remains, although the arms which are represented on the Seal are the same. I understand that the Royal Arms cannot be altered in Ireland without a proclamation by His Majesty in Council.

jnestorius^(talk) 15:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

jnestorius- this is great research. Thanks. In the first place, it shows that at least one Irish MP did request a unique Great Seal for Ireland - which by implication may have translated into a Royal Arms for Use in Ireland as exists in Scotland to the present day as well as a Royal Standard for Ireland as now exists for use in Scotland. As for the legislation that preserved the unique Scottish quartering - which clearly has been retained to the present day - it may have been an Order in Council by Queen Anne rather than any Act of Parliament or it may have been continued by precedent without any ruling. More research would be needed to see of if the Royal Arms of the UK for Use in Scotland was created "as Her Majesty shall think fit" in Council. However, the Queen may have simply deferred to the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Scotland who then simply created the current royal arms and royal standard we see used in Scotland today.Jm3106jr (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that we're confusing the great seal, the union flag, the royal standard(s), and the unique arms of England, Scotland and Ireland all together in this discussion. --Tóraí (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It may appear that way, but I think the terms used are quite clear. No mention was made in this discussion of the union flag. Jm3106jr (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Arms?

Only the escutcheon is shown and the Office of the Chief Herald registered them as "Arms of Ireland", as opposed to "coat of arms" since the rest is not there. Shouldn't the correct term therefore not be "Arms of Ireland"? Gryffindor (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not...really. There's plenty of quite legitimate arms in the UK and Ireland (mostly arms of towns and cities) that feature only the shield or at most; perhaps the shield and another external ornament. For example, the arms of Lincoln feature only the shield; and there are plenty more. Remember; the escutcheon itself was the only 'arms' in the first place

Also; Germany, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, Switzerland, the Ukraine and the Vatican City all have arms that feature only the escutcheon. Making a distinction between 'achievement of armscoat of arms' or just 'arms' is purely semantic. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coat of arms of Ireland. 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/20130518035146/http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/garmsBackReg198 to http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/garmsBackReg198
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518035146/http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/garmsBackReg198 to http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/garmsBackReg198

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Armiger

This is a continuing issue, it appears, and so I am going to try to be as diplomatic as possible as I lay out some facts.

• Ireland is an island.
• Ireland is divided into two distinct entities; one that is an internationally-recognised sovereign state with all the rights and duties involved (UN membership, own passport and citizenship, a military), and one that is a constituent member of another internationally-recognised sovereign state with all the same rights and duties.
• That part of Ireland which is a sovereign state is officially named Ireland, but also regularly referred to in international relations, public media, and common parlance as the Republic of Ireland.
• That part of Ireland which is a sovereign state at one time claimed all authority over the entirety of the island, but since the Good Friday Agreement does not.
• These two separate entities may at some point in the future unite to create a single sovereign entity, or they may not, and that is dependent upon the consensus of the peoples of both entities, free from external interference.
• Until such time as that happens, the use of the moniker Republic of Ireland is not only common, but in some circumstances required or unavoidable where distinction between the two current entities is to be made.
• A gold harp on a blue background has been the common heraldic symbol of the entire island for centuries.
• This artistic rendition of that description was created in 1945 and adopted to represent that part of Ireland which is a sovereign state. It has never been used to represent a single unified entity covering the entirity of the island.

For these reasons, the armiger of this image cannot simply be Ireland, but must be Republic of Ireland, as the former is both philosophically and legally inaccurate and misleading. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ireland is the legally accurate name for the country. As had been made clear over a decade ago, the manual of style WP:IRE-IRL applies here and is very clear: Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context.

If you disagree with the MOS you're more than welcome to build consensus to change it. Cashew.wheel (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fry1989 I don't wish to engage in an edit war.

The facts you mention above are mostly correct (legally and practically the name of the country is Ireland), however they do not relate to the question at hand. No claim is being made to sovereignty over the entire island.

If the state that is being assigned the attribute of "Armiger" for this coat of arms is (the Republic of) Ireland, then Wikipedia's Manual of Style WP:IRE-IRL prescribes how that country's name should be presented.

All other conversation on this talk page has made that clear, and while I understand you disagree, the MOS is clear. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cashew.wheel: A policy that does not recognise that there are sometimes situations that are beyond its original intent is no good policy at all. In fact, the policy as you quoted it does recognise that and does apply here in the opposite of your interpretation, because as I stated the harp on a blue escutcheon has been the heraldic symbol of the whole island for a very, very long time, and the article currently as written not only discusses that history but conflates the history of the whole island with the post-1945 history of the Republic of Ireland, both in text and by combining them in the infobox. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fry1989 Can you point me to the discussion where there is consensus that WP:IRE-IRL does not apply in this case?

I understand your point that the coat of arms has been used on the island long prior to the establishment of the current state, but I think it's agreed by all that the entity of that state is the only current claim to this coat of arms.

WP:IRE-IRL is very clear and I see no reason in your counter argument why this is an exception to the norm. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cashew.wheel: Whether there has been a discussion and a consensus does not change the fact that policies are not absolute rules, and there must be room to bend in certain cases. It is impossible to claim that this coat of arms represents the whole island, because it very simply doesn't. It represents the sovereign authority of Ireland, that being the Republic in the lower 3/4 of the island. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a valid argument why this page is somehow exempt for the application of WP: IRE-IRL.

We're all in agreement that these are the coat of arms of Ireland, the country, and the article should state as much. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)