Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "User talk:JSpuller"

(Moving st george remaining updates to upper default update subsection, adding leopard updates pending)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
Blank.svg|This is merely a little heads up that I am revamping quartered eagles and other smaller eagles so they fit the area of the shield better. Similar to the quartered lions.
 
Blank.svg|This is merely a little heads up that I am revamping quartered eagles and other smaller eagles so they fit the area of the shield better. Similar to the quartered lions.
 
Mississippi.svg|CoA is out of alignment, stroke of the letters, escutcheon should be standardized (we have Alabama arms) and the eagle hand holding arrows should be fixed.
 
Mississippi.svg|CoA is out of alignment, stroke of the letters, escutcheon should be standardized (we have Alabama arms) and the eagle hand holding arrows should be fixed.
 +
Oginski.svg|Oginski
 +
Czetwertyński I.svg|Czetwertyński/Chetvertinsky
 +
Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky.svg|Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky
 +
Benja_Ancient.svg|Leopard update
 +
Lucca Duchy.svg|Leopard update
 +
Lucca 1815.svg|Leopard update
 +
Lucca_e_Piombino.svg|Leopard update...not sure about this due to specific pos.
 +
Elisa Bonaparte.svg|Leopard update
 +
 
</gallery>
 
</gallery>
  
Line 41: Line 50:
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
==St George==
 
I see you updated few of the St George arms so you probably already have this list but I'll post it here nevertheless just as reminder of the arms that contain it and should be updated. Also if I may add something, the rider on Muscovy ancient, or rather the leg behind the horse is clearly different from the front leg, it's really noticeable and this is a small issue for Movila arms below but also for Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky corrected version which both should have golden shoes/boots. Also on the Svyatopolk arms the rider should not have a crown but either nothing or a helmet and the cloak is blue, dragon black and there are no back horizontal straps or golden buckles.
 
 
 
<gallery caption="For update" align=center style= "color: #292929;font-size:1.2em;font-weight: normal;text-align:center;font-style: normal;">
 
 
Oginski.svg|Oginski
 
Czetwertyński I.svg|Czetwertyński/Chetvertinsky
 
Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky.svg|Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky
 
 
</gallery>
 
  
 
==Comment==
 
==Comment==

Revision as of 09:58, 12 May 2020

Corrections

New Arms requests

Petricevic Miketinec - also a branch of Mogorovic. On a blue shield a lion Or, holding a sabre proper in dexter hand and three white roses similar to this arms...lion issuing out of two bars way argent on a lower half gules which is somewhat similar to Keglevic or Szecsenyi arms but with wavy lines, example

Wales - heraldic badge of Wales. Used since 1801 representing Wales along with the Prince of Wales arms (four qtrs. with lions). Arms is per fess argen and vert, dragon passant gules. The arms later recieved an augmentation in 1953 with a circular belt and a crown on it: see here

Asturias - Arms of the principality of Asturias as "Realm of Castile" and later of Spain. Arm is described as "cross of victory" as you probably know. The official version is a cross adorned with jewels and text inscribed on the side, simplified version is just a plain (but same) cross with no inscription as is used also on the flag of Asturias. official version, simplified version as used on the flag

Danneskiold-Laurvig - Counts of Larvik, issue of 3rd marriage of Ulrik Frederik Gyldenlove. Arms is basically the same as is for the progenitor of the branch except that inescutcheon is not crowned and on the inesc. the lions are above the cross and above it all sumperimposed another rounded crowned inescutcheon gules with two yellow/golden initials "F3" (Frederick III) and a crown above them. example. I should note that it seems the colors on 2nd and 3rd qtrs. are reversed, not sure if this is the mistake or not...

Danneskiold-Samsøe - Counts of Samsø, illegitimate issue of Christian V of Denmark. Similar arms as the previous Laurvig branch but with a swan (representing Samsø obviously) instead of Laurvig/Larvik lion and the middle small rounded inescutcheon having the initials "C5" and above them a crown. example 1, example 2

Löwendahl or Løvendal - we already have the arms of this family (see here) but there seems to have been another identical variant however on it there is a quartered inescutcheon. example 1, example 2

Gyldenløve Oldenburg - forgot to add, the arms of Danish royal bastards of Christian IV, Frederick III and Christian V all were named "Gyldenløve" and seem to have carried same arms. The arms were either stand-alone (such as carried by Hans Ulrik, illegitimate son of Christian IV) seen here but also as escutcheons as is the example on this arms also linked above. It's a Danish cross and two golden lions passant, now some variants show them above and some below, so I am not sure which one is the correct or whether there is a "correct version". Also as you know there was another family in Norway that went extinct by 1500s that had the same name and all that so making the page for this will be an issue...maybe "Gyldenløve-Oldenburg" or "Gyldenløve-Denmark".

Livro requests

Lago - Arms of Lago - no need for elaboration, the image pretty much speaks for itself
Gil Vantvisyet - Livro image, quartered Or and Azure, not sure what those things are in 1st and 4th quarter but it sure looks like some kind of shoes. 2nd and 3rd quarter a moor's head, over all a cross gules hollow argent

Pachecho Livro - source image. The arms of Pachecho in Livro seems like a hybrid of several cauldron variants we have: Pachecho, Manrique de Lara, Lara Ancient. The elements on the cauldron seem to be vaire nebuly similar to Vasconcelos f.e.

Gabriel Goncalves - source image. Arms is double-headed eagle holding a moor's head, all withing a "rope bordure" similar to Eca i.e. Eça arms.

Botos - source image shows a shield divided per saltire Or and gules, Or quarters charged with a Moor's head, gules quarters charged with argent towers

Viveiro - source image shows a shield quartered. 1st and 4th quarter are similar to Guzman or Manrique de Lara cauldorns (not so many serpent heads), cauldrons are completely chequy argent and gules on a azure field, bordure ermine. 1st and 3rd quarter are a variant of Fajardo quarters, water part seems smaller on this variant than on the example linked, while the branches are intertwined in a saltire.




Comment

I am sorry but how can you make House of Carlsson if the ONLY member of that "house" was one person and one person alone - the illegitimate son of King Karl Gustav? I don't understand... Finellach (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2020 (CEST)

Because the ‘house’ was introduced in the Swedish House of Nobility in 1675. Don’t see why that’s difficult to understand... https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Carlsson_nr_22

JSpuller (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2020 (CEST)

Well, first of all it's not a "house", it's one person...that one person was elevated and introduced into the nobility which wasn't strange since he was a natural son of the king. So basically you made an article where it says "Barons" and "Counts" as in plural...there was no "House of Carlsson" as it was one Baron/Count (one person) who had no surviving children...his only child (daughter) died as an infant, this "house/family" begun and ended with him. So if we go by this then basically any person we have arms for (and had titles) on the website can be by this logic be "a house" of its own. As far as I understand how nobility in Sweden works is...the surname gets recorded in nobility register, the fact a surname is registered doesn't always means we are dealing with a house as in this case can be only one person and it's self evident. In any case....no offense but that looks ridiculous and grossly incorrect. Just because someone wrote that on some site (and it is Wikipedia...worse of all sites) doesn't mean we have to copy its false and incorrect information, it's not logical at all... Finellach (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

Yeah I know it's only one person… Anyway, I don’t understand the big fuss here. I do agree that the setup on the 'house of Carlsson' might not have turned good and I've fixed that. That he died childless after his family name Carlsson was introduced in 1675 at Riddarhuset/House of Nobility doesn't take away the fact that we are talking about a family/house here rather than one person. He simply died childless and ended his lineage by himself. Another thing, adding him to the house of Palatinate-Zweibrücken and using his personal arms there is even more incorrect as he was in no way part of the royal family. That Wikipedia page with it's false and incorrect information is referring to the source below,


Gustaf Elgenstierna, Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor. 1925-36
https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Grevliga_ätter
Carlsson nr 22
Grevliga ätten Carlsson nr 22 †
Grevlig 1674-03-09, introducerad 1675. Utdöd 1708-01-01
https://www.adelsvapen.com/genealogi/Carlsson_nr_22

JSpuller (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

It's not a big fuss, the only thing is IMO all that which is now in House of Carlsson could've been achieved by simply putting that in personal arms on Zweibrucken page...I don't think that it implies in any way that this person was member of the royal family as it clearly said he was the illegitimate son of Charles X so I am not sure how that would be incorrect. But hey if you want to do it like this you can...it just seems to me really weird that we now have a "cadet branch" of one member and leaves me then thinking what with all other similar examples we have out there where we had younger sons or illegitimate children...should we make pages for them as well? I mean I've been following this certain standard we basically agreed upon by practice and I've done a lot of pages where I did a huge amount of research and I dare to say even hard and tedious work I've put into some of these pages...hopefully I did a semi-decent job, but this makes me doubt it for some reason...but I guess in the end it really doesn't matter that much anyway. Finellach (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2020 (CEST)


You're making and have been making an awesome job and I am forever thankful for all your work and it do matter. IF the site could generate some money I'll gladly share it with you. :)

I have been in touch with the chief genealogist at Riddarhuset (Magnus Bäckman) here in Stockholm and here's what he has to say in the matter, (Google translated from Swedish):



Hi Joakim,

Thanks for your question! In the genealogical context and in terms of modern times, the word 'ätt' (family) is used in such a way that it is formed whenever an individual is ennobled. There are many noble families that only consisted of one person when the family lineage ended. One example is the (unintroduced) noble family of Sellman, who became extinct when the ennobled, who was unmarried, died only a few months after being ennobled in 1772. A large subgroup of the noble families are those who have been introduced at Riddarhuset. Even the introduced noble families includes everything from one individual upwards.

I hope it was clarified, please come back otherwise or if other questions arise!

Sincerely Magnus Bäckmark Riddarhusgenealogist / Chief Genealogist

JSpuller (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2020 (CEST)

Lol thank you...I don't need money for this wth...I do this for my own pleasure. Anyway regarding this whole "issue", it's not a big deal, it just seemed strange to me at the time but as with everything it just takes time to adjust, this discussion helped as well. ;) Each country has a specific way of how it deals with nobility (and what a "noble house" is) and there are nuances in meaning as well from country to country. If we look at how Spanish and Portuguese deal with it, it's totally different from anything else I've seen, that is just one example. I mean there are quite substantial differences even between English and Scottish practice, not just in meaning and practice but also in heraldic practice as well. That is actually why I like working on this site the most, I have learned so much in the past couple of years that when I look back and see where I was when I joined this site (I think it was 2012-2013 or something) ...it's really funny how ignorant I was. In any case...as with everything, we can make it work as we did with everything else so far. :) Finellach (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (CEST)