Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 7 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moved content

Much of the content here has been moved from the file Image:Coabxvi.png. Although I have an interest in this topic, I am not well versed in heraldry. If you are, please feel free to correct any errors I may have made. --Eoghanacht 17:42, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Britannic emphasis problematic

We could usefully re-phrase certain sections so that the article doesn't seem to comment upon or describe the arms from a British standpoint. Continental conventions differ from the British ones. (I say this from the standpoint of an academic background and continuing research in heraldry.) The disadvantage to be wary of is if the article ends up unintelligible or misleading to readers who might be reading it with British backgrounds. --69.143.11.35 13:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give it your best shot! One of the hardest things about writing is keeping a topic relevant to multiple readers. Just ask yourself, will a middle school student, a college educated middle-ager, and an experienced herald all find the revised article (at least different parts of it) interesting and informative. --Eoghanacht 15:57, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Compromise?

Where does this information about the camelaucum and it's coat of arms come from? I could find no other information whatsoever about it anywhere on the web. It would seem that someone just drew it up and put it on the page. I would like to be proven wrong, as the idea intrests me, but I suggest it be taken down until further proof of the idea's veracity can be shown.

Found it on the American Heraldry Soc. discussion page, see "References" or follow this link . --Eoghanacht 13:53, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Just because a web forum thinks something should be a certain way should not qualify it for inclusion. Since COAs are regulated by different organizations and obviously by monarchs who use them, only those statements should be listed on this page. If anyone has any proof that the vatican is considering other variants like the crown or the camelaucm (letterheads with it, press releases about it, etc) those should be included, not the thoughts of random individuals. Mbisanz 23:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fact versus Speculation

Is it right for a topic to mix facts with speculations and proposals?

I believe the page should be oriented firstly to describe the COA, them to discuss it.

Liturgiological Perspective

Liturgists and liturgiologists, both liberal and conservative, have been quite excited by the developments in the arms, in large part because they emphasise the Pope's primary role, that of Bishop of Rome. The elements considered "new" are not new to the bearings of bishops; therefore it is incorrect to speak of them as new, except in references to the papal arms themselves. Further research into papal armorial bearings might well also prove that these elements are not foreign to papal use.