Talk:Royal Banner of Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoyal Banner of Scotland has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

References[edit]

Why is an unreliable blog used as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Banned[edit]

  • I was wondering why the article dosent mention about the usage of this flag being limited to royalty and certain dignitaries only.

    The article just casually mentions that the act of using the flag is illigal in sporting events, it does not however mention the reason behind it.

    Also if I'm not mistaken, now days they allow the general public to use the flag on certain specific days of national celebration.

    I'll add this to the article if there's no disagreements.

    --Pavithran 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is illegal for the public to fly the Lion Rampant from a building. In 1934, the King issued a Royal Warrant saying the public should by allowed to wave the Lion Rampant by hand to show their loyalty to the crown. There's some debate as to whether this is truly legal, or if the King was acting illegally, not that anybody in Scotland other than a few pedants actually gives a hoot. Don't have time to find a reference for this, but it's out there. --Charlie Tango 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Standard or Armorial Banner[edit]

I think that this article is actually about an armorial banner. A Standard is a completely different vexillological item. Perhaps this article could be edited along the lines of the Royal Standard of Great Britain article, which makes clear that this usage of the word "standard" is strictly incorrect, though widely used.--Eva db 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion Rampant when used by a Scottish Republican[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia.

Hey, I made an edit to the article Royal Standard of Scotland, which is the article you get re-directed to when you search for "lion rampant".

Exactly I added this -


The Lion Rampant, as the Standard of Scotland, has also been called the "Scottish National Standard" in the context of its use by a Scottish republican when asserting a claim of right to use this traditional leadership flag of the Scots.

Stop spamming, Peter Dow[edit]

This, fellow Wikipedians, is a good example of a troll, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that NO ONE shares his extremist opinions, I have seen videos by this nasty piece of work on Youtube, in which he says he wants to commit terrorism and regicide- TashkentFox 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]


But the change I made has been reverted back to the original and I'm none the wiser who did it or why.

Now if there is no agreement on even mentioning Scottish republicans who use the lion rampant or linking to such an external site, maybe I should write a new article, named "Lion Rampant"?

User talk:Peter Dow

Don't add links to your own website to Wikipedia, it is considered to be spam. The link is not considered to be important. Astrotrain 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Lion Rampant and the Royal Standard of Scotland the same thing?[edit]

Are the Lion Rampant and the Royal Standard of Scotland the same thing?

The lion rampant is frequently mentioned as a component of coats of arms, yet this refers to the red, guling(?), lion as also seen on the Royal Standard of Scotland, not the standard itself. For an example of this see Clan MacDuff.

I am curious about the origins of the Lion Rampant. How did a red Lion come to represent Scotland? In medieval times, how did the Scots even know about Lions? I think this is a subject separate from the Royal Standard of Scotland. --Fergie 10:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lions would be known- Romans fed the Christains to lions remember. Astrotrain 10:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no end of lions on Pictish stones. David killing the lion or Daniel in the lions den were popular religious themes, the one for kings, the other for saints. Most likely they were copied from imported materials from the Eastern Med or beyond. One image is thought to have been copied from silverware made in Afghanistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why the 'Lion Rampant'? Where did this style of heraldic lion first originate?--Fergie 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William I is the man who picked it, and he wasn't very original. It's a very, very common symbol. Flanders (black lion, gold field), Brabant (gold lion, black field), Limburg (red lion, white field), Zeeland (red lion, gold field), the Netherlands (gold lion, blue field), Halland (white lion, blue field), Västergötland (gold and black lion on a black and gold field) and Smaland (red line, gold field) are just some of the places with rampant-ish lions on their arms or flags. No doubt someone will claim to have been first. I imagine William copied someone else's arms, changing the colours, rather than being inspired by the sight of a lion. Or maybe he did see one: James V kept one at Stirling Castle, so you never know. Better yet, Edgar sent a camel, or maybe an elephant, as a gift to the High King of Ireland in 1105: "In the above year a camel, an animal of remarkable size, was brought from the king of Alba to Muirchertach Ua Briain." It doesn't do to imagine that Scotland was at the end of the world [well, it was, but it wasn't the back of beyond if you see what I mean] in times past. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples: Royal Arms of Norway (very similar to the Scottish arms, but reversed colours) and the arms of Gothenburg (the city was founded by Scots, Dutch and Germans). (Pedantic note: its Småland, with an "å"). --Mais oui! 11:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original question, they are not the same thing as the lion rampant is used in more than just the royal banner of scotland, Its a heraldic term and can only really be specific with colours (for the field at least) applied. It just means a lion stood up and facing forwards. To my mind it shouldn't redirect here and should be a disambiguation page. I was sent here by a link regarding the use of the lion rampant by Peugeot which I'm told has nothing to do with the royal banner of scotland. that or it should redirect to Lion (Heraldry).(Morcus (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In answer to Fergie's question of long ago as to the origin of the lion rampant, I believe it became fashionable during the Crusades. If you look at the preferred emblem of early mediaeval leaders north of the Alps, the commonest symbol of leadership was the eagle, i.e. the king of the skies (used throughout history in Russia, Germany, Poland, the Balkans etc). After the Crusades the lion as the 'King of Beasts' starts to take over as the commonest symbol of kingship. Quite apart from knowledge of lions gained from the Bible, the lion symbol seems like an importation into northern Europe from the Mediterranean where it had been well known since Roman times. As to style, the fact that it stands upright and literally erect conveys the sense of an aggressive attack posture, symbolically apt for the warrior-leaders of the Middle Ages. (User talk:Kim Traynor) 01:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The upper parties per fess[edit]

I changed this caption:

The Royal Standard of Canada, featuring the Royal Standard of Scotland in the second quadrant of the upper parties per fess.

I replaced quadrant with the heraldic (and common) term quarter, and removed the last few words. The coat of arms of Canada is quarterly with a base added, not per fess; even if it were per fess (half-and-half), such technical language is unnecessary here; and parties is just weird. —Tamfang (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to an extent; the description was taken from a reliable source, but I didn't recognise the need to avoid such the "technical" aspects. I've added a bit to the sentence on the basis of this description from The Coat of Arms of Canada - A Short History:
*Arms: Tierced in fess: the first two divisions containing the quarterly coat following, namely, 1st Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, 2nd, Or a lion rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory Gules, 3rd, Azure a harp or stringed Argent, 4th, Azure, three fleurs-de-lis Or, and the third division Argent three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper.
The thumb description should now be sufficient in terms of a non-technical description, without the loss of any degree of accuracy. Endrick Shellycoat 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Standard of Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

After several quick read-throughs, the article appears to be at or about GA-level. I'll therefore carry out a more detailed review secion by section against WP:WIAGA, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Design -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • History -
  • Ref 11 appears to be a book: the page number, or numbers, should be provided. Done
  • Otherwise, appears to be compliant.
  • Protocol -
    • Use at Royal residences -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Use by Royal representatives -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Legal status -
  • The final sentence in the first paragraph, i.e. "Despite such action, the flag continues to feature on a variety of merchandise and souvenirs produced commercially for Scotland's economically important tourism industry.", is unreferenced and thus appears to be a Point of View. Done
  • The final sentence in the second paragraph, i.e. "Today the flag continues to be used unofficially as a second national flag of Scotland, particularly at sporting events.", is unreferenced and thus appears to be a Point of View. Done
  • Otherwise, appears to be compliant.
  • Appearance in other Royal Standards -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be compliant.
  • National Flag of Scotland -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • Further comment - "Broadness" -
  • Whilst it is not mentioned in this article, the Caledonian Railway obviously "pinched" the Royal Standard in the early 19th century and apparently got away with it. A reproduction appears [here]. There is (obviously) a way of describing their Coat of Arms which I'm not going to attempt: the flag firstly appears distorted to fit a shield supported by Unicorn rampants, which are holding aloft modified versions of both the National Flag of Scotland and Royal Standard of Scotland, etc, etc.
  • I think this aught to go into the article; but it does not fit "easily" into any of your existing sections, well possibly it could fit into Legal status. I should be able to find a reference of the "pinching", I half-remember it was put more politely - possibly "brazenly copied". I will try and find that citation tonight.
Whilst I agree that you have an important and noteworthy point with regard to the Caledonian Railway, I feel that although a reference to the company's use of the pre-1603 Royal Arms should be made, it should not however be in this article. This article concerns the Banner of Arms of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland; the article concerning the Arms themselves possibly being a more appropriate place for the Caledonian Railway to be mentioned. It would be a great addition to that article if you can indeed track down a reference. Did they also use the Banner of the Arms in any way, do you know? Endrick Shellycoat 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC) PS Thanks for all your work re. WP:GA assessment.[reply]
Yes, as you have brought my attention to the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, I agree that it is more appropriate than this article. No they did not apear to use the Banner of the Arms, just a modified version of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland; but I was not aware of the latter. Thanks, I've learnt something that I did not know before. Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be compliant.


Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, well-illustrated and well-referenced article on a specialist subject.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag proportions[edit]

If proportions for the Standard listed in the infobox is correct the Standard should look different with height bigger than the width. Can somebody clarify whether Standard should be changed according to proportions or vice a versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no other reference to the flag ratio/proportions other than the house flag example at the Lyon website linked to in the article. Britannica online shows an almost square example, but again no mention is made of a ratio. Also, the Standard of the Duke of Rothesay in the Chapel of the Order of the Thistle in St. Giles' Kirk looks as though it is of a ratio which differs from the other examples which accompany it. Don't quite know if the 1:2 ratio usually seen is merely down to convenience on the part of flag manufacturers, but if someone else can find another reference please include it, or anyone with a creative knack for .svg design please add a 5:4 "house flag" example. Endrick Shellycoat 22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC) PS This is probably not 'proper', but the flag manufacturer By Appointment to Her Majesty The Queen, who you think would know about such things, shows the 1:2 and 2:3 ratio on their website: Flyingcolours. (On closer inspection, this is meaningless as they show the same for the Swiss flag, which everyone knows is square!!!).[reply]
May be proportions simply not fixed as with Saltire. Nothing really says anything about proportions and on the picture from Britannica they look like 4:5 rather than 5:4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but unlike in the case of the Saltire, there is no reference I've found which states that it's proportions are "not fixed". The only reference dealing with a ratio is that which Lyon Court states with regard to personal banners: "Flown over the house it denotes that the armiger is there, and as a house flag its proportions are 5:4. The size of a house flag depends on the height of the building and the pole, and it should be large enough to be intelligible at the height at which it is flown." Endrick Shellycoat 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess image should be redrawn to make it 5:4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast... on reflection, the Royal Standard of Scotland is not used as a house flag to "denote that the armiger (HMQ) is there"; instead it is used in other instances as outlined in the article. The example in the infobox is identical in design and ratio to that shown on the Lyon Court website, therefore IMHO it is entirely appropriate for the infobox in that respect. Endrick Shellycoat 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it somehow possible to ask the officials about correct proportions, or kind of stated while official proportions is 5:4 in practice 1:2/3:5 is used —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly in this case, anything not in the public domain, such as a personal e-mail correspondence or similar which are not WP:RS or WP:V compliant, cannot be used. The Lyon Court website only mentions a ratio with regard to one particular instance, and the only other guide is the visual representation on the site itself. The article itself does mention that flag manufacturers use alternative ratios and, to be honest, I think the whole flag ratio issue has been overtaken somewhat by the flag manufacturers themselves dictating what size is most convenient for them as opposed to following any protocol - I suspect it is easier to purchase a Swiss flag in a ratio of 1:2 rather than the correct ratio of 1:1. Unless another definitive source can be found then I suggest we have to leave things as they stand. I'd like to put "not fixed" as the ratio b ut until I can find a source then the only ratio associated with a standard is 5:4. Endrick Shellycoat 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milesians origins?[edit]

I happened to be over at Portal:Ireland and noticed that this article features prominently in their 'Did you know?' section:

  • "...that the Royal Standard of Scotland may have its origins in a Milesian symbol brought from Ireland in the 6th century?"

See also:

Are there any solid academic refs that could be used on this article? Ta, --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple in the History section. Endrick Shellycoat 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are "solid academic refs". Both were written over a century ago. It's not a coincidence that the wildest claims in Wikipedia articles on Scottish topics tend to be based off out-of-date sources. McAndrew's book is used a couple times in the article, I think that or something published in recent years would be a much better source for facts about the early arms.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess on your criteria the Bible would be an "out-of-date source"? 81.135.131.228 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible would be a primary source. The sources we are talking about are Victorian secondary sources. Historians today interpret primary sources differently than they did back then. Modern scholars might not consider the Milesian tales to have any bearing on Scottish heraldry.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No less interesting, but it's the other way around. The lion on the flag of the 1220s was used by some Irish clans adopting heraldry in the 1500s. Those clans who claimed a kinship with the Dalriadic dynasty used the lion to confirm the link. The records have been kept since the 1500s by the Genealogical Office that still grants arms in Ireland.86.42.207.133 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History Behind The Armed and Langued Azure[edit]

I was curious if anyone knew this. Beyond495 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't necessarily mean anything. Tongues and teeth are customarily painted in a contrasting tincture: usually red unless the beast or the field is red, otherwise blue. It's simply a way of making some of the beast's distinctive attributes stand out. —Tamfang (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Standard or Royal Banner?[edit]

According to royal.gov.uk, the Queen’s official banner in Scotland is named the Royal Banner of the Royal Arms of Scotland. I'm not actually sure where the phrase Royal Standard of Scotland originates. Sources appear to suggest that the term Royal Standard came into use after the 16th century to refer to the combined English–Scottish banner, when the English Royal Standards (an entirely different style of flag) ceased to be used, suggesting that the Lion Rampant has never been referred to as a Royal Standard (except in modern, unofficial usage). Possibly, it's more correct to refer to it as a Royal Banner, as opposed to a Royal Standard. There is also a version of the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland, making Royal Standard of Scotland a little ambiguous. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Royal Standard of Scotland. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Banner of Scotland. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harp/fleur-de-lis use in royal flags and useless photographs[edit]

1. The section "Appearance in other royal flags" shows some royal flags that use the lion rampart. Some also use the harp which is as anachronistic as the fleur-de-lis. When George III gave up on France and George V gave up on Ireland those symbols should have been removed from the standards.

2. The second, fourth and fifth images in the gallery are pointless because the flags are so tiny no detail can be made out of them. Those images are useless.

ICE77 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still officially the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your comment does not address the point. There is no correlation between harps or fleur-de-lis with the current kingdom. Those are things of the past that no longer belong to it. It's a historical fact and that's an example of anachronism. ICE77 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- in 1922 or thereabouts, the UK government authorities made a decision not to remove the so-called "Patrick" cross from the UK flag, or the harp quartering from the coat of arms. They didn't ask you for advice, and I'm not too sure how your personal opinion on the matter is relevant to improving this Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk)

1. I really was not looking for a childish opinion from somebody with so much attitude and knowledge but I guess the world is full of babies that really know how to use computers nowadays. Aside from the fact I was not born 100+ years ago so my opinion would have never had any weight, it is important to point out that the opinion of millions of Irish who were alive at that time did not count at that time either and most Britons probably did not care either. It's obvious the UK government never had any plan to remove the red saltire from the Union Jack, especially in 1922, the year of Irish independence. It would have been equivalent to admitting they did not own most of Ireland anymore, a claim that started in 1169 with Henry II. Losing the Angevin Empire after the Hundred Years War was already a painful memory. Besides, the cost of replacing millions of flags across the UK would have been costly so there was no logic, impetus or interest behind such an inconvenient decision. The red cross, let's face it, is not even the topic I was discussing. Aside from the fleur-de-lis and the harp, the red cross is equally if not more out of place and anachronistic. It's nothing more than the perpetration of the tenets of people of the caliber of Henry II, Edward I or Henry VIII, all kings who were obsessed with power and dominion. The Union Jack should look like the one from 1606. It's a matter of fact but it's out of the scope of this discussion. I'm just pointing to fleur-de-lis and harp as symbols. This is not a matter of opinions. It's a matter of historical facts. ICE77 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is a petulant "baby" here, it's you, since you seem to be suffering under the delusion that your personal opinions will somehow change the real world outside Wikipedia, when in truth very few would even care about them at all. If the Irish government has an objection to the so-called "Patrick" cross in the Union Jack or the harp quartering in the Royal arms, then it will lodge a diplomatic protest, but you won't be involved in that process. And it's simply a fact, whether you personally like it or not, that Heraldry does not instantaneously respond to geopolitical changes -- for instance the English/British royal arms had a quartering for France from the middle ages until 1837 (still present to this day in the coat of arms of Canada). Meanwhile, the purpose of this page is for discussions about IMPROVING the "Royal Banner of Scotland" Wikipedia article, and not for you to go off on personal ranting tirades... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Banner_of_Scotland&oldid=1208234435"