Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 10 August 2012

Heraldry and vexillology Stub‑class

Coat of arms of the Holy See is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

{{WikiProject European Microstates|class=Stub|Vatican City=yes|Vatican City-importance=High}}

Christianity: Catholicism Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Comments

Coat of arms pic in article has changed. Is it correct? Name suggests it's a vatican coa rather than the arms of the holy see. --OscarTheCat 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it to the red shield version, since it's the official blazon according to here. Pmadrid 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested undo of move

It has been proposed in this section that Coat of arms of the Holy See be renamed and moved to Coat of arms of Vatican City. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Coat of arms of the Holy See → Coat of arms of Vatican City – The illustrated coat of arms has been officially declared to be the coat-of-arms (in Italian, stemma) of Vatican City State. Sources deny that it is the Holy See's coat-of-arms.

What was presented as grounds for moving this article from "Coat of arms of the State of Vatican City" to "Coat of arms of the Holy See" was the heading "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" in an English-language news service that does not state that the two are identical. The Italian text of the same news service, which is presumably the original, speaks of the "coat of arms" (stemma) of Vatican City, but with regard to the Holy See speaks instead of its emblema (emblem). Both the English translation and the original Italian give two distinct illustrations, of which it can be reasonably presumed that the first concerns the Holy See and the second the Vatican City State. The first is displayed merely as an emblem, not on a shield as a coat of arms. While the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State of 2001 (which on this point repeated that of 1929) is a reliable source of the highest order for the statement that the coat of arms illustrated on that site and described in this Misplaced Pages article is the official coat of arms of the state, the source adduced gives no valid grounds for claiming that this coat of arms is also that of the Holy See - even less that Misplaced Pages should present it as principally the coat of arms of the Holy See.

Another website explicitly distinguishes between the two: "L’emblema della Santa Sede Apostolica e quello dello Stato della città del Vaticano non coincidono, essendo il primo il simbolo dell’ufficio del Romano Pontefice, capo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana, mentre il secondo è il simbolo proprio dell’entità politica e amministrativa. Anche se gli elementi caratteristici di entrambi sono le chiavi e la tiara papale (l’emblema della Santa Sede però non è inserito in uno scudo)." In English, "The emblem of the Holy Apostolic See and that of the Vatican City State are not identical, since the former is the symbol of the office of the Bishop of Rome, Head of the Roman Catholic Church, while the latter is the symbol proper to the political and administrative entity. Although the elements that characterize both are the keys and the papal tiara (the emblem of the Holy See is, however, not placed within a shield)."

Another study is more concise: "Hat der Heilige (Apostolische) Stuhl ein Wappen? Nein, aber ein Emblem" (Has the Holy (Apostolic) See a coat of arms? No, but it has an emblem). And it gives as source for its statement the German version of the very source that the mover of the Misplaced Pages article gave as grounds for making the move! It also criticizes as "heraldisch falsch" (heraldically wrong) the use of the emblem of the Holy See (without shield) on the button of the uniform of the Vatican City gendarmes: "Hier müsste das Staatswappen stehen" (Here there should be the coat of arms of the state).

That the coat of arms illustrated is that of Vatican City is clear. That it is the coat of arms of the Holy See as claimed in the renamed article is, to say the least, disputed. The move was wrong. Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The English article is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", the title itself states they are one and the same by the use of and, especially since the article goes on to show but one coat of arms and one blazon, not two distinct and separate descriptions. The Italian article's title is different, yes, but the Italian article the goes on to describe only one coat of arms. The other articles you listed do differ from the Vatican's article, but those articles are not official. We should defer to the official article by the official source. Bellae artes (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That is only your personal interpretation of what the English article means. The Italian article, as you rightly say, gives only one coat of arms (as does the English article) and speaks only of a coat of arms of Vatican City, not of the Holy See, while also giving an emblem (as, for some reason that you fail to explain, does the English article) and speaking only of an emblem of the Holy See, not of Vatican City State. The Italian article is, I would think, more not less official, than the English translation. More official still is article 20 of the Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State, which describes the coat of arms illustrated in the other sources as the coat of arms of the state (surely an official indication of the proper title for the Misplaced Pages article) with no suggestion that it is also the coat of arms of any other entity. The other cited sources that you wish to ignore are not primary official sources, but they are, in Misplaced Pages terms, reliable secondary sources; and they explicitly state (no question of personal interpretation here) that the Holy See has no coat of arms but has an emblem. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not interpreting the article, I merely quoted the title. The title disagrees with your assessment without needing any further interpretation. But if the title is not enough, there is further proof that both entities share the same arms--there is only one coat of arms being discussed in the article.

And the English article is official, because it is an official press release from the Vatican's Press Office. No where does the Vatican state one language is "more official" than another, so no, the Italian article is not better or more accurate in any way. Even so, the Italian article only discusses one coat of arms as well.

Secondary sources are fine, yes, but if a primary official source contradicts it then that makes those secondary sources unreliable.

Oh, and that Fundamental Law that describes the State of Vatican City’s arms wouldn’t mention the Holy See because because the Laws of the political entity have no bearing of the religious entity, so it is not surprising that there is no assigning of the See’s arms in the State’s laws. In any instance, the Fundamental Laws do not provide any facts to back up your argument, nr any information pertinent to this discussion, so it is only a distraction to even bring it up. Bellae artes (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Just commenting my experience in Flag of Vatican City. The Vatican is old fashioned and it works in Italian, not in English. The Italian version is always the original version, the others are just translations. The translations are sometimes incomplete, and the meaning of some sentences may be slightly changed from the original. In case of disagreement, the Italian version is always the correct one.

And a comment on sources. A press release is edited by the persons in charge of PR, it is very focused in immediate events, it may quote incorrectly other sources, or it may quote only the parts that support the press release. In my book there always low-quality sources. And they can't be edited after release to fix errors. When a press release disagrees with an article on the official website, the article should be given preference. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Enric Naval. Another indication of the non-authoritative character of such press releases is the statement in the English release that "the shield is surmounted by the tiara" - like the mitre above the escutcheon of the personal arms of Pope Benedict XVI or the tiara above those of his predecessors. This is quite evidently mistaken. The Italian text rightly says that the keys are surmounted by the tiara.

To the comment by Bellae artes that the Italian press release "only discusses one coat of arms", should be added: "which it identifies as that of the Vatican City State and does not attribute to the Holy See".

The coat of arms illustrated is certainly that of Vatican City State. Not even one reliable source claims it is also that of the Holy See. The Wikipedias in all the other languages call the illustrated coat of arms that of Vatican City, not of the Holy See. We are surely not going to say that they are all out of step except our English Misplaced Pages. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The language of the Vatican is not Italian, it is Latin. If we are going on the non-authoritaveness of press releases as an argument to exclude the official English press release, why are you, Esoglou, quoting an the Italian press release as a source? Even if official press releases have minor errors in them (both the English and Italian versions do), they are still official and hold more weight than un-official website. So again, it is improper to somehow attribute the Italian press release as the supreme authority and use it to dismiss the English because that argument could easily be turned around to dismiss the Italian release.

Esoglou, I do not understand your issue with this, so let me try to break this down for you. The Italian press release is titled "Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano", please not the use of the word "e", but goes on to describe only one emblem. So that makes that one device the emblem of the Holy See and the Vatican State. To back this up, the English version is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", please not the use of the word "and", but also goes on to describe one coat of arms. This, again, means that both the Holy See and Vatican State are represented by the one coat of arms described in the article. The press releases in every language go on to describe one device, and each time label it the device of the Holy See and Vatican State; they are one and the same.

Also, what another Misplaced Pages does has no bearing here. Most other Wikipedias mirrored the English version, copying the titles and crudely translating the articles to help expand the article counts on other Wikipedias. So copying the title of this article over to other languages is hardly a reason to leave it as is. Also, Misplaced Pages can't be cited as a source on Misplaced Pages. Do you not know how Misplaced Pages creates the content of its articles? So you should understand that simply because you see it on Misplaced Pages doesn't make it true, and for that reason a person can't cite what he wrote in one artilce as evidence for what he writes in another article on Misplaced Pages.

Find a source from the Vatican that contradicts the Vatican's press release. Until then, the official stance from the Vatican is that the coat of arms of the Vatican State and the emblem used by the Holy See are one and the same device. Bellae artes (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange that you still give more trust to your personal interpretation of a press release so inaccurate that it cannot even rightly describe the escutcheon, than you give to an accurate document of the Press Office of the Holy See, which speaks of two distinct things, for each of which it provides an illustration: the "emblem of the Holy See" (which it nowhere describes as an emblem of Vatican City State) and (you rightly stress that "and") the "coat of arms of Vatican City State" (which it nowhere describes as a coat of arms of the Holy See)! Two distinct things, the emblem of the Holy See and the coat of arms of Vatican City State, as stated also by other reliable sources. The accurate press release, as you remark, "goes on to describe only one emblem" (which it calls the emblem of the Holy See), and it also goes on to describe only one coat of arms (which it calls the coat of arms of Vatican City State). Are you for some reason imagining that the heading is "Emblema e stemma sia della Santa Sede che dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" (Emblem and coat of arms both of the Holy See and of Vatican City State"? That is not the heading. It's "1) Emblema della Santa Sede; e (note this word e) 2) Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano". Misplaced Pages must follow what is explicitly stated in a number of reliable sources, not what one demonstrably unreliable source is taken to mean. Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

The present version of the article is based on an interpretation by Bellae artes of a page of a website, seen as declaring that that the coat of arms of Vatican City State as also the coat of arms of the Holy See, and a supposition by Bellae artes that the coat of arms in question existed before the foundation of Vatican City State and was that of the Holy See. Other sources disagree. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(I put two pictures in the article. The keys are reversed in the coats, so we need two different images, or one image where both coats appear). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I could only find this "When what is represented is the Holy See, not Vatican City State, the keys are reversed. Rather, when the state was set up in 1929, the keys in the arms of the Holy See, with the gold one in dexter position, were reversed to provide a distinctive symbol for the new entity." --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a long book here, but it's in Italian. Can someone check it? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the www.crwflags site, being a wiki, does not count here as a reliable source. The book you mentioned begins on page 319 to speak of the Holy See, but in terms of papal flags (the coat of arms of the United Kingdom is very different from its flag) and in terms of the use of the "insignia" of Rome (the papal city). On page 324 it begins to speak of the Church of Rome, but again with regard to its "insignia". Then on page 329 it begins to speak of the "coats of arms" (stemmi) of the Popes. In short it gives information on the evolution of the insignia (if you wish, the "emblem") of the Holy See and the use of these insignia on the coats of arms of various entities, but it nowhere illustrates a coat of arms of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Most books I have on heraldry seem to gloss over the matter; they may refer to the Vatican State but then do not mention the Holy See, or vice versa. I believe this arises from the complex issue of what exactly is the Vatican State in relation to the Holy See, and how separate they really are. The idea of reversed colours for oneand another propably come from the papal arms which have the keys reversed from the State's arms. It was likely assumed one pattern for the holy, one for the secular. This is what was written on Misplaced Pages without sources, and this is what seems to have spread across the Internet, now coming back to Misplaced Pages full circle.

When going to the websites, the Holy See seems to prefer to use the keys and tiara without a shield and the Vatican State seems to prefer to use the keys and tiara with a shield. This is a more recent trend, for the Holy See exised in a heraldically rich environment centuries before the Vatican State was created. It is worth mentioning, but in the sense that the trend has been recent and the arms pre-date the State. Bellae artes (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean, the website of the Holy See uses only its insignia (the emblem) of tiara and crossed keys, and the Vatican State uses only the coat of arms of the tiara and crossed keys on a red field. The essential point is that the coat of arms was created for the Vatican City State by the law of 7 June 1929 and that, although the Holy See existed "in a heraldically rich environment" for centuries, there is not a scrap of evidence of the existence of that coat of arms before 1929. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 337 at this source, in the third row far right we have the "scudo della Santa Sede nel XV secolo", or "shield of the Holy See in the 15th century", which shows a pair of crossed keeys and papal tiara. Bellae artes (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bravo. The book you refer to is that already indicated by Enric Naval. The author seems to have interpreted that design as a 15th-century coat of arms of the Holy See. There is no indication of the colour of the field. So we have a source that says the Holy See had a coat of arms in the 1400s. I have failed to find in the book any indication that the author holds that the Holy See has a coat of arms at present. Perhaps you will prove me wrong. So now we have one source that says the Holy See had a coat of arms half a millennium ago. We have another source, a clearly inaccurate page, that speaks of "coat of arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", which you interpret as saying that the two entities share the same coat of arms, and which you extend to mean that the one coat of arms illustrated is principally that of the Holy See and only secondarily that of Vatican City State. On the other hand, we have a page without obvious inaccuracies also issued by the Press Office of the Holy See which speaks of a coat of arms of Vatican City State and in the same context attributes to the Holy See only an emblem. We have also two secondary sources that explicitly, without any need of interpretation, say that the Holy See has no coat of arms (now), only an emblem, something that seems to be borne out by the website of the Holy See, which presents only what the Press Office calls the emblem of the Holy See and does not call an emblem of Vatican City State, while the website of Vatican City State presents what the Press Office calls, both in Italian and in English, the coat of arms of Vatican City State and, at least in a certain interpretation of its English version, the coat of arms also of the Holy See. It seems to me that the weight of evidence favours the view that the Holy See has no coat of arms now, especially in consideration of the Misplaced Pages rule that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

From a Catholic source, Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopaedia: "The coat-of-arms of the Holy See is a red shield ensigned with the papal tiara over crossed gold and silver keys."

From a heraldry source, A treatise on ecclesiastical heraldry: "A carved stone shield dated 1337 in the Palazzo dei Consoli at Gubbio is particularly interesting, as it retains traces of its colouring, the keys being white and the field red. From this time on cases of shields with the crossed keys, generally tied, are fairly frequent."

"Froissar, in his Chronicles referring to the events of the year 1383, is the first to blazon the arms of the Church, faisait Vevesque de Mordwich porter devant lui les armes de I'Eglise, la banniere de St. Pierre, de gueules a deux clefs d'argent en sautoir, comme Gonfanonnier du Pape Urbain."

"The colours of this coat have varied a good deal. The field is almost always red, occasionally blue. At first the keys are white, then comes a time when gold keys are found, and finally the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister slowly makes its way. A banner of the Church de panno rubeo cum clavibus Ecclesiae Romanae is referred to at Benevento in 1331; in 1337 we have the painted stone shield at Gubbio already mentioned, and red banners and hangings with white or silver crossed keys, sometimes tied gold, appear in the crusading scene in the miniatures of the Statutes of the Neapolitan Order of the Holy Ghost (1352)."

"A red shield bearing two white crossed keys, and surmounted by the tiara, is to be seen in a window of the cathedral of Bourges accompanying the achievements of the anti-popes Clement VII and Benedict XIII, and other examples of these tinctures are to be found in manuscripts dating from the time of the former of these anti-popes and from that of Nicholas V, in a series of shields painted on the ceiling formerly in the church of San Simone at Spoleto (ca. 1400), in the 15th-century glass in the cathedrals of York and of Carpentras, in various 15th-century books of arms both English, German, and Italian, as well as in Martin Schrot's book of arms which is as late as 1581."

"The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister, although the relative positions are sometimes reversed."

"In the later Urbino manuscripts in the Vatican Library, such as Dante (about 1600), and the life of Francesco-Maria della Rovere (after 1605), the keys are regularly gold and silver. From this time on, at any rate where the keys appear in a shield, these tinctures seem to be thoroughly established. Variations from the use of the red field for the papal arms are rare."

Therefore, I tend to agree with Bellae artes. Embattled Grady (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That sound quite convincing. I refer not to the Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, which may not be a reliable source on this matter, but to the heraldry book, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry by Donald Lindsay Galbreath (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930). It supports what Enric Naval said about the position of the keys. Speaking of the definitive form of the arms of the Holy See (yes, it does speak of the Holy See as having a coat of arms), it states: "The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister", the opposite of the positions of the keys in the coat of arms of Vatican City State and in full conformity with the disposition of the two keys in the heraldic achievement (outside the escutcheon) of the personal arms of the Popes and in the sede vacante arms, which, now I come to think of it, are the arms of the Holy See during those periods, lacking the tiara to indicate that there is no pope. I think Embattled Grady can be said to agree with Enric Naval rather than with Bellae artes. The Italian press release of the Holy See Press Office describes only one coat of arms, that of Vatican City State, and its silence about any coat of arms of the Holy See is no proof that the Holy See has no coat of arms. While the English press release has a heading that could lead the reader to conclude, like Bellae artes, that the coat of arms of Vatican City State and that of the Holy See are identical, it gives a blazon that, if it does not mention the disposition of the keys, applies to both coats of arms posited by Enric Naval, distinct ones for the Holy See and for Vatican City State. It cannot be cited therefore as proof that the Holy See's coat of arms is identical with that of Vatican City State in contradiction to what is clearly stated in the technical book by Donald Lindsay Galbreath.

Perhaps Embattled Grady would be good enough to comment on the correspondence (or lack of correspondence) between the English release's blazon and the illustration it gives. I would have thought that "two keys in saltire or and argent" would mean that the gold key, the first mentioned, was in bend and the silver key, the second mentioned, in bend sinister, as in the coat of arms of the Holy See as posited by Enric Naval, and not as in the coat of arms illustrated, which is undoubtedly that of the Vatican City State. Also, "interlaced in the rings or" seems to me to indicate an interlacing in gold, not, as in the illustration, in red. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your quoted material deals with the keys of the popes and the papacy, which are known to be reversed in colours from the keys of the Holy See. Understanably, this is confusing you. The office of the pope had a coat of arms of its own, usually on a red field (some, not a majority though, of early German sources say blue field) are a tiara above two keys crossed in saltire with gold key in bend and silver in bend sinister. The papal arms, for this reason, use the keys in saltire with the gold one in bend. The idea of the papacy having or needing a separate coat of arms has fallen to the wayside centuries ago, the arms of the popes and the tiara and key emblem serves that purpose enough, but the custom of the gold key in saltire has remained. The Holy See has arms also red (with some early German sources saying blue) with a tiara above two crossed keys but the gold in bend sinister and the silver in bend; this way technically different. On top of that, as can be seen in the Catholic Church coat of arms section I wrote, the Church's arms were sometimes recorded as being two crossed keys on a red field without the tiara. Still further, the Basilica of Saint Peter has a coat of arms which display two keys, though they did not evolve like the papal keys and were rarely seen crossed in saltire.

The sede vacante emblem is used by the Camerlingo as a symbol of his office, who, by virtue of that office, acts as the head of the Church when there is no reigning pope. The emblem is displayed behind the coat of arms of the Camerlingo, as can be seen here; when it is used by itself, it merely indicates the office of the Camerlingo and not the Church, papacy or Holy See. Bellae artes (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what Embattled Grady thinks of your way of getting out of the conclusion that Embattled Grady and I drew from Galbreath's book, namely, that the arms of the Holy See are gules two keys in saltire or (normally in bend) and argent (normally in bend sinister) surmounted by a papal tiara or triple crowned argent, the view also of Enric Naval. Your way of getting out of it is to posit a "papal coat of arms" distinct from the Holy See's coat of arms, the "papal coat of arms" being as described by Galbreath and the coat of arms of the Holy See being - according to your argument, which is based solely on a heading in the English version of a press release, which disagrees with the Italian version (the original, as Enric Naval confirms) and on no other evidence whatever - is identical with the coat of arms of Vatican City State. I think that, unlike you, most people would see "papal coat of arms" and "Holy See's coat of arms" as synonymous, and would ask what is the Holy See without the papacy. I notice too the lack of citations in support of the affirmations in your claim about a distinction between papal arms and the Holy See's arms. Esoglou (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

-> Esoglou: You seem to be mistaken about the www.crwflags site; it is no wiki. It is a summary of mailing list discussions, each page edited for clarity by a single editor. --Palnatoke (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To summerize, as an outside editor, it appears as though Esoglou is right. There are a lot of sources to suggest that there is a Vatican CoA and there are obviously Papal CsoA but I see no evidence (absence Original Research and Synthesis) to suggest that the Holy See has a coat of arms, nonetheless that they are the ones described at this page. Achowat (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You agree with Esglou on the part where he said there was no coat of arms for the Holy See, or the part where he said there was a coat of arms for the Holy See? Or the part where he thinks the papal keys and the coat of arms of the Holy See should be the same despite the Vatican disagreeing? I would think the Vatican would know more about itself than Esglou. Bellae artes (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continues, in spite of the insistent removal of the tag on the article page pointing to existence of a dispute.

Although at first I accepted what two independent secondary sources said about absence of a coat of arms of the Holy See, I have become convinced that the Holy See does have one. I do not accept the view that the coat of arms of the Holy See is certainly identical with that of Vatican City State, as Bellae artes claims on the basis of Bellae artes's interpretation of an English version of a press release that diverges considerably from the Italian version of the same press release. If, as Palnatoke seems to say, the www.crwflags site is a reliable source, there is even evidence that, on the contrary, the two coats of arms are in fact distinct because of a different arrangement of the keys, as the Galbreath book indicates is at least the normal arrangement for the papal arms. Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source because it is nothing more than conversations like this one that have been edited and posted by the webmaster, but it can be used to narrow infomration and sometimes points you on to an actual source. Bellae artes (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, I'm not convinced the difference in the position of the keys is significant. As Galbreath wrote, "The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister, although the relative positions are sometimes reversed.". Also, the French and Spanish pages on the Vatican website agree with the English page ("Armoiries du Saint-Siège et de l’État de la Cité du Vatican", "Escudo de la Santa Sede y del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano" - I can't find the German or Portugese pages). I don't know if it is correct to imply an order from that English blazon ("two keys in saltire or and argent"), I would expect it to be explicit to avoid any misunderstanding if the positions are significant.

Interestingly this is what the Heraldry Society (Coat of Arms, 1966) did in a response to an enquiry: "Papal Arms. With reference to the arms of the Holy See, one authority gives the blazon as follows: Gules a key or in bend above a key argent in bend sinister, both wards upwards, the bows united by a cord or, above the shield a tiara, its three crowns or, the mitre argent." My thinking is if the difference is significant then one would expect to find a contrary blazon for the Vatican City like Gules a key argent in bend above a key or in bend sinister or two keys in saltire argent and or etc. but to date I have nothing. Embattled Grady (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Stub-Class heraldry and vexillology articles
• WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology articles
• Stub-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• Stub-Class Catholicism articles
• Mid-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Requested moves