Talk:Coat of arms of Norway

Norway High‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Coat of arms of Norway is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles

Royal coat of arms

I have twice recently felt obliged to remove unsuccessful attempts at improving the approved royal coat of arms of Norway. The correct image may have a low resolution, but a low resolution is better than an incorrect depiction of an official symbol of the monarchy. Roede 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official COA of the King of Norway has once more been replaced by a home-made version by Ssolbergj. He asks: "Why is it unsuccessful? If you can point out something to improve, it's ok, but right now i don't see anything wrong." Answer: The Kings of Norway use a specific design for their official COA, introduced in 1905 upon the accession of King Haakon VII. It was designed by the painter Eilif Peterssen. The shield, the lion, the robe, and the crown of the official COA are all distinctly different from the elements constructed by SSolbergj. The least plausible element is the cross suspended from a kind of ribbon around the shield. According to the description in the article, "The shield features the insignia of the Royal Norwegian Order of St Olav around it." Let us keep it that way, so that the image does not contradict the text. Consequently, I have once more reintroduced the correct version, hoping that it will remain until it is replaced by an image of the same design with a higher resolution. Roede 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've improven the robe, crown and order. The lion is the 1905 design and everything is correct. This new robe is closer to the on on www.kongehuset.no than the old jpeg. If you still aren't satisfied, then download Inkscape and correct it yourself. (it's easy) Dont think that Image:Roynorw.JPG is the "set in stone 100% correct". Probably not the original by Eilif Peterssen. (there are 1000 different versions out on the net. for example this)) The SVG is much closer to this than Image:Roynorw.JPG, so please don't revert.

S. Solberg J.

23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are getting closer now! The lion is excellent, and the crown is the correct 1905 version with the funny little lion cub on top. Only the chain of the Order of St. Olav still has potential for improvement. The chain ought to be more chain-like. In the shields along the chain, those on the (heraldic) sinister side are facing left, probably because you have inverted the opposite half. All the lions should face the same way, to the (heraldic) dexter or right side. The ciphers of St. Olav and the little crowns ought to be outlined more clearly. Carry on! Roede 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssolbergj's image is very good but why not upload a drawing by Eilif Peterssen for reference? He died in 1928, so the original drawing is PD now (legal restrictions still apply naturally). Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Eilif Peterssen's painting from 1905, in the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. Roede 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that this version of the royal coat of arms was replaced with a slightly different one at some point during the last century. If you look at the official website you will see that the one they use has a narrower robe and a cross on the top of the crown instead of the small Norwegian lion. [1][2] So, we should probably replace the image in this article, and move the one used now to the gallery. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that change happened with the redesign of the Royal House web pages. Also the crown is very much different and it is ajusted to be B/W. I am not so sure it should be treated as an official change in the design.Inge (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the website though. I have a book called "Königliche Paläste" that is a German translation of an Italian book from 1999 and in the section about Norway there is an image of an embroidered version of the royal coat of arms that is now used on the website. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the crown design is at least from the after the present king and queen took office, but I can't be sure. As you can see it is used in the Harald/Sonja monogram here. I think I'll just send a mail to the palace and ask.Inge (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan. Tell us what the reply is. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything come of this correspondence? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the palace an email, but it was not answered. The web page states that the palace does not answer all emails and a real letter is needed to guarantee an answer. I haven't followed up on that and I don't think I will. In any case I don't think the royal coat of arms has changed. Inge (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the right is a version of the Arms as according to both that painting, and this engraving. I've asked Ssolbergj for a source for his, as I can't find ANY with the purple mantle and less-detailed lion he's pushing now, and all he said was that he didn't care what pics I have, and called me a troll. He feels the other version "looks better", but I don't think that's enough. Fry1989 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mantles of the two sources above seem purple to me, especially the engraving. It's quite common to use red for purple. Actually, I'd say most of these types of mantle are purple. I have changed Ssolbergj's file, and made it a more reddish purple. Adelbrecht (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crown and silver axe

It is stated that the crown and silver axe was added in 1280, but the seal of Jemtland was granted in 1274 and already contains the Norwegian coat of arms with crown and axe. The Jemtland informtion seem to be well referenced while the 1280 seems not to be. Still I have a faint memory that this is the year mostly given. Any comments?Inge (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to just list some hypothetical explanations:

The date for adding the axe and crown is wrong, but the king (Eirik Magnusson) is right.

The King is wrong and the date is merely taken from Eirik Magnusson's reign dates.

The seal of Jemtland was granted in 1274 and was later changed to fit the new design of the Norwegian coat of arms of 1280. Ie. all but the depiction of the seal is right.

The seal was not granted in 1274.

The seal was not granted by Magnus the lawmender.

Inge (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old seal of Jämtland is said to have been granted in the 14th century, though it has in fact been dated to 1274 (see here). I have never given it much thought myself though. Your third hypothesis seems very plausible regarding the seal. //Heimvennar - divider 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earldom of Iceland, Orkney and Kristiansand?

I have added the coat of arms of the Earldom of Iceland, Orkney and Kristiansand, but perhaps they (and Jemtland?) should be included in a second gallery, seeing as they are the coat of arms of foreign/sub-national entities. Opinions? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Politi-norway.png

Image:Politi-norway.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coat of arms from 1220?

The article says: Håkon the Old (1217-1263) used a shield with a lion. The earliest preserved reference to the colour of the arms is the King's Saga written down in 1220. This needs to be specified. In which saga is Håkon's coat of arms described? Which saga was written down in 1220? Håkon Håkonsson (Håkon the Old)'s saga was written down in the 1260's. Something is wrong, but what?--Barend (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has replied, and no one has modified the sentence in the article, so I deleted it, as it is meaningless - what "the King's Saga written down in 1220" is supposed to mean is impossible to tell.--Barend (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery section

I think the changes Ssolbergj made to the gallery section(s) make sense, but I also think that there is merit in having a section for derived or related coat of arms. The ones I have in mind are those of the Earldom of Iceland and Orkney, rather than the Norwegian police force, army, etc. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal coat of arms

Image 1

Eilif Peterssen's 1905 painting

Image 2

I would argue that image 1 is better, and aesthetically more consistent than image 2. The level of detail varies enourmously between for instance the lion charge and the ermine mantling in image 2. I generally support the notion (and factual rule of heraldry) that a rendition is completely valid as long as the blazon is being followed, but since some editors are very persistent in thinking otherwise, I'd like to point out that image 1 actually is more similar to Eilif Peterssen's 1905 painting than image 2. - SSJ ^t 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fanciful image 1 does not follow the blazon of the arms of Norway. The Norwegian lion or is not armed. In image 1 it is armed gules (or something very close).Roede (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the colour of the claws and the tongue. If the goal had been for the images to bear the greatest resemblance to Peterssen's painting, then image 2 is no less fanciful. - SSJ ^t 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ssolbergj, I would like to know how you think any form of consensus has been gained. This is just a rant by you on why yours is better. Nobody had agreed with you. And the sources, such as [3], still say otherwise. For those who do not quite follow, Ssolbergj believes he can make something any way he pleases, in any style, as long as it just follows the basic textual description of the blazon. There however are those of us who believe that the blazon is NOT the sole source on a coat of arms, but that also the style and way that the Armiger depicts it should have influence on our Wikimedia version. The Second image, which has been in use here since February 11th 2011, is more accurate as according to how the Armiger displays the Royal Arms. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources" you refer to are not particularly close to any of the files on commons. Let's discuss what's available. - SSJ ^t 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"why yours is better"? I made both. - SSJ ^t 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you made both (and I attributed you as creator of the second one when I uploaded it, so nobody would think otherwise}, but that does not give you ownership rights on what one will be used and what one will not. It should be noted that this whole problem stemmed from Ssolbergj constantl[y changing the file to hideous renditions like royal coat of arms of Norway.svg this, royal coat of arms of Norway.svg this and royal coat of arms of Norway.svg this. I was therefore forced to upload the only good and stable version to Commons, and I clearly attributed Ssolbergj as author and creator. Ssolbergj is only interested in promoting his own works, what ever way he personally thinks looks best based on his personal tastes. Self-promotionalism and the extreme ownership that Ssolbergj is showing by trying to force his latest look on this article even though there was absolutely zero consensus for such a change, does not belong here. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you discuss which one to use or will you only accuse me of trying to force something into articles? I'm not intending to do that, that's why I started this section. Which one do you prefer and why? - SSJ ^t 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought up the fact that you made both, as if I was somehow trying to claim the second image as my own, which I NEVER do. You're also the one who started the whole topic with "I support the idea that we can do it any way we want as long as it follows the blazon". Am I not allowed to refute that notion? Fry1989 ^eh? 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said that I argued "why [mine] is better", as if I hadn't made image 2. Anyway, you still haven't argued whether image 1 or image 2 should be used. That's what needs to be decided. - SSJ ^t 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you completely abandoned the second image in favour of your other hidoues changes like linked above. "Your version" refers to the one that you like and support, not the one you created, because as is already showed, I attributed you as the creator of both. Maybe if I was trying to claim the second one as my own work, you'd have more of an argument. More extreme ownership by you.

In any case, I think we all know by now what one I support, and why. But just to be extra clear for you, I support the lion onthe second one because that is how it actually is in use. Not your fanciful lion, which you technically didn't even make, Adelbrecht did, so you're the one claiming other people's works as your own. On both the Royal Website and this engraving, we can clearly see the lion is like Image 2. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's the lion from this 1924 image, which never has been used in the royal arms. this 1937 lion is on the other hand very similar to the lion that always has been used in the royal arms. - SSJ ^t 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The lion in image 2 is infinitely closer of the actual lion than your(Adelbrecht's) fanciful lion. If I have to upload both lions by themself for closer scrutiny, I'll absolutely do it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being rude by the way? - SSJ ^t 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mantra has always been that one should seek what's being used by the local authority. Then why doesn't the look of the ermine mantling interest you? That element is in image 1 much closer to pettersen's painting. SSJ ^t 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I am being rude. If you wanna talk about the ermine mantling, that could easily be applied to image 2, and I would not only not have an objection, I would welcome it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the shape of image 1's ermine mantling not closer to the one in the painting, in your opinion? - SSJ ^t 23:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, and if I had the ability to apply it myself to image 2, I happily would, but I am still basic when it comes to inkscape (something I freely admit). In return, can you not agree that the lion in image 2 is closer to not only the painting, but [4], [5], [6] and [7], especially with the tail? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the lion in image 2 is similar to [8]; it's the same lion that I imported. But that lion has never been used in the royal arms. It is a pity that your favourite activity is to engage in hardcore reverting without contributing to a better solution. - SSJ ^t 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Take a second look at the Royal Website header, it's clearly the same lion. And if you wanna talk about "hardcore" reverting, let's talk about you, trying to force your questionable version (without consensus) against the one that has been on this article for over a year as File:Royal Arms of Norway.svg, and even longer as File:Greater royal coat of arms of Norway.svg before you drastically changed it on the 19th of July 2009 to royal coat of arms of Norway.svg this, which I think we can both agree looks nothing like the arms in any of the sources we have. That's hardcore reverting, I simply have maintained the version that has been on this article (and many others) for over 4 years. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be open to combining the shield and lion, collar of the order, and the crown from Image 2, to the ermine and mantling of image 1, that would be an acceptable compromise to me. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't think notions on what's "acceptable to someone" make for a fruitful and diplomatic discussion, but now I've added the 1937 lion, which is similar to what was used in earlier years as well (the wiki PNG updater might be slow). I think the crown and collar should be as they are in image one, due to consistency of style (image 2 has no consistency in level of detail whatsoever, or shading technique, for the elements). Are you OK with this? - SSJ ^t 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't come out the way I meant when I said "acceptable". I meant it more as a compromise, where it sounds more like a demand. Anyhow, the new lion is too simple for me. What I was thinking was Image 1's mantling and ermine, with Image 2's lion, shield, crown and darker reds, with some sort of blend between the two orders. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the problem with lion 2 is that is has a level of detail and shading technique which is completely different from the rest. I think consistency should be prioritised when it comes to these things. Lion 1 is drawn from File:Kongevåpen 1937.jpg (extremely similar to the one seen in Norway's parliament), upon which it's practically impossible to draw more detail. - SSJ ^t 22:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific blazons

It'd be cool if someone could provide sourced blazons of the early forms of the arms. I've noticed that a number of articles on medieval topics appear to be using the royal standard anachronistically in infoboxes and whatnot.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snorre

Snorre, who was an employee of King Sverre - was he really? Not of Håkon Håkonson? Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the sentence concerned. — Breadbasket 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why use Salomonsen's lion style?

The illustration of the national coat of arms used here has a three dimentional and old style that is not used in our time by the Norwegian governmental authorities. The lion style is from the old Salomonsen encyclopedia and is different from the style of Peterssen in 1905, of Hallvard Trætteberg in 1936-37 and of Sverre Morken today. From a heraldic point of view it is OK to have different drawings, but not if we want to give information about how the arms are used by the actual authorities in Norway today. The royal family is still using the Peterssen lion style and not Salomonsen's style.Hans Cappelen (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please se my comment in the section Construction of article. — Breadbasket 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National arms and royal arms

There seems to be some confusion in the article between the national arms with the shield only and the royal arms with a mantle. I shall try to correct that within some days.Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is a monarchy, and in a monarchy, Arms of Dominion and the 'national arms' are basically the same thing, differenced only by the external elements.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The so-called State Coat of Arms is merely a (very) simplified version of the Royal Coat of Arms. Their internal relation may be compared with that of Sweden's lesser coat of arms (used by the King's Government) and greater coat of arms (used by the King). The Norwegian Royal Coat of Arms is the coat of arms of the whole nation. — Breadbasket 11:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you because the Royal arms are exclusively for the royal family and the national arms are for the State and a number of governmental authorities i. a. the parliament (Stortinget). The royal coat of arms differs from the national coat of arms because the mantle and the collar of the Order of St Olav are important and identifying elements of the royal arms both in the 1905 Royal Decree and in heraldry. The information and wording under some national arms in this article, is misleading and incorrect when saying that the national arms are the royal arms. I ask you kindly to correct it.

The Norwegian royal arms were created and new in 1905 and the royal arms are based on the national coat of arms. Norway is a monarchy in accordance with the country's constitution and the constitution is decided by the parliament (Stortinget) and its member representatives elected by the people. In my opinion the national arms should be the first and most important arms in an article about the coat of arms of Norway, with the royal arms as a version of the national arms. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King is formally superior to the King's Government, and so are his arms superior to those of the King's Government. He is the Head of State, a sovereign monarch or not.

The Royal Coat of Arms has, in its most basic appearance, been in continuous use since the 13th century. The State Coat of Arms is basically a spin-off. It appeared in 1937, when the Government chose another design than the established one. They might be two independent 'grants', but partly historically and partly formally (constitutionally), the Royal Coat of Arms is indeed the superior one. — Breadbasket 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here. In the time before the Denmark-Norway union in 1380 the national arms ("State Coat of Arms") and the king's arms were the same. The national coat of arms of Norway was, however, only a part of the union kings' complicated shield, during the Danish-Norwegian union as well as in 1814-1905 during the Swedish-Norwegian union. The coat of arms of the nation, the parliament, the government and the governmental authorities has from the year 1814 been the lion-shield with the royal crown on top, since 1844 with the lion's short battle axe. There are no other elements in the national arms. The national coat of arms is only a certain part of the royal arms, all the time from the Danish-Norwegian union till today; the royal arms always had in addition also several other heraldic elements, identifying those arms as the very special royal arms. There is not any kind of "spin-off" in 1937, because the arms then were heraldically the same arms as of 1905 and 1814/1844. The Norwegian king elected by the people in 1905, had a special coat of arms designed for him and the royal family exclusively and not to be used by anyone else. Please, read my article «Norge i 1905: Gammelt riksvåpen og nytt kongevåpen», Heraldisk Tidsskrift, bind 10 nr 94, Copenhagen October 2006, and/or the other literature listed in the article. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they are the same Arms. The external ornaments like the mantle and collar don't make them a different Coat of Arms. Also, the Norwegian Arms were NOT created in 1905: they existed before that, notably in the Arms of the monarchs of Norway who also happened to be at the same time Kings of Sweden or Denmark. The Arms of a monarch in any monarchy are Arms of Dominion and are thus the Arms of the state and the Arms of the monarch at the same time, reflecting the fact that the monarch, not the people, is sovereign, as with any monarchy, whether absolute or constitutional.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to correct you but they are not the same arms, not in law and not in heraldry. Two or more different arms may have the same shield but different crests or mantles - I thought that was quite basic heraldic knowledge. The shield of the Norwegian national arms is old and from the 13th Century, but the crown with the little demi lion on top is from 1905 and from the same year is the royal coat of arms. The Norwegian king is a king with his legal position defined by the constitution and the monarch is a not sovereign with powers over, or at any higher level, than what is given him by the constitution. I think that is the same situation as in most modern European monarchies. If you still disagree and/or doubt what I am writing I will recommend you to study more heraldry and constitutional law. Hans Cappelen (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty about heraldry thank you very much, I am an associate fellow of the International Association of Amateur Heralds, as well as a member of the Heraldry Society.I have passed exams for both societies, as well as for the Canadian Heraldry Society as well. I have also published several journal articles on the subject of heraldry too.

They are the same arms. The outside elements, such as the crown and mantle, are irrelevant. The shield is the only indispensable part of a Coat of Arms. If I display the any Coat of Arms without supporters, helmet, crest, mantling, motto, etc. it is still the same Arms.

the monarch is a not sovereign

-All monarchs-whether constitutional or absolute are sovereign. That is what 'monarchy' means-that the monarch is the literal embodiment of the state, as opposed to a republic where the people are sovereign. Even if this is only formally-as is the case with all constitutional monarchies, it is still the case.

In this respect they Arms of Dominion are both the national arms and the arms of the nation's monarch, who is the monarchy's sovereign, and are thus simultaneously the personal arms of the monarch and the arms of the state he or she reigns over.

The famous heraldic author John Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, in his book 'An Heraldic Alphabet' (page 38) wrote regarding Arms of Dominion:

"These, which are also styled 'arms of sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms. The royal arms are arms of dominion; the Queen's arms of descent would be those of her own branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, of course, with ministerial and heraldic advice."

Furthermore, in his 1983 revision to 'Boutell's Heraldry', Brooke-Little stated (page 222):

"Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the office and rank of royalty, and cannot be borne undiffference by any person except the Sovereign...The Royal Arms may not be quartered without some difference. In the person of Sovereigns, all minor ranks and titles are merged in their royalty; consequently whatever arms they may previously have borne cease to be used at their accession, and no other arms may be quartered with the Royal Arms. The arms of the Sovereign are not impaled with those of his or her consort."

Therefore, in most hereditary monarchies the Arms of Dominion are also the Arms of State; they cannot be used by anyone else; no matter how closely related they are to the monarch. Thus younger members of Royal Houses will use arms that are similar to those of the monarch, but they are made slightly different by marks that are placed on the shield, including but not restricted to, labels. This is called cadency, and is equally applicable to the arms of non-royal families, but is not as enforced. Within royal families, however, it is rigidly enforced by the heraldic authorities of the particular country.

In republics, the arms of the head of state (who is not the sovereign by definition) are not the same as the arms of the state (which is sovereign-or rather-the people of the state are). For example, the arms of the United States of America and the arms of the various Presidents of the United States of America are not the same. This is something that has been well established since pre-modern times; the arms of the various Doges of the Republics of Republic of Venice and the Doges of the Republic of Republic of Genoa were not the same as the republics over which they ruled.

Furthermore, as the monarch is sovereign in a constitutional monarchy, the government will act in the name of the monarch, rather than in the name of the people (as is the case for example in the United States), hence such terms as are used in for example Britain where the government is formally 'Her Majesty's Government', the Queen in the annual Queen's Speech refers to 'My Government', courts are run in her name (a court case in Britain will be 'The Queen/King vs A. Person' rather than 'The People vs A. Person' like it is for example in the USA). In reflection of this, the governments of constitutional monarchs will often utilize a lesser form of the Arms of the Monarch, sometimes with less external ornaments or only using the shield or whatever. This is true for Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Liechtenstein, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and is true for Norway as well.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you: The Norwegian national coat of arms and the Norwegian royal coat of arms are two different coats of arms. They are defined in at least two different Royal Decrees (1905 and 1937), and the one is used by the parliament and the government, and the other is used by the Norwegian King and Queen (the Crown Prince and Crown Princess are using the royal arms with a special crown). In several countries there is a number of private coats of arms with identical shields and different crests. Accordingly, I cannot see that the following statement is correct - may be not even in British heraldry: "The outside elements, such as the crown and mantle, are irrelevant."

The monarchs in modern western countries have their legal positions defined and ruled by the constitutions and the parliaments have the power to change the constitutions. Today's meaning of the old and traditional word "sovereign" is different from former meanings, as with so many legal and paralegal concepts. In accordance with old traditions, and with respect for the actual persons being western monarchs to day, several monarchs have formal roles as still having the governments' cabinet meetings in their palaces and they are opening the first meetings of new parliaments etc. In Scandinavia the law courts are not using phrases like 'The Queen/King vs A. Person'. In Norway we use 'The State (Staten v/) by the actual governmental body vs ... ' in civil cases and 'The Norwegian Prosecuting Authority (Den offentlige påtalemyndighet) vs ... ' in criminal cases. Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now followed my own advice and read more in a book: Boutell's Heraldry, revised by Brooke-Little (1970), pages 13-14. I read that you in English heraldry have two or three concepts, where we in Norway only have one (våpen and with the same meaning: våpenskjold). They are: (1) Coat of arms ("shield of arms"), and (2) Armorial bearings ("arms on a shield, crests, supporters, badges"), etc., and (3) Achievement of arms ("a complete display of armorial bearings" including badges, motto, coronet, insignia of orders etc.).

As far as I can see, when English language wikipedia has articles for each country started with "Coat of arms of ...", then the meaning is to have the articles about the "Achievement of arms of ...." as it is called in Boutell's/Brooke-Little's book.

The achievement of arms of the Norwegian parliament, government, supreme court etc. is only the shield (with the lion and axe) and the royal crown on top of the shield. No other components. This is the National Coat of Arms of Norway (in Norwegian: "riksvåpen" = coat of arms of the realm). The "Royal Coat of Arms" has more components as an Achievement of Arms of the King (in Norwegian: "kongevåpen"): it has the same shield as the national arms, but in addition the mantle with crown on top and the collar of the Order of St. Olav around the shield. You will find this achievement of arms many places, i. a. on the Norwegian Royal Family's website (w.w.w.kongehuset.no). The Norwegian royals can - when they like to - even be using the shield with the royal crown only, as e.g. it is painted on the plates of the Swedish Order of the Seraphim. But the parliament, government, supreme court etc. shall use the shield and crown only and they are not allowed by Norwegian Royal Decrees to use the other components of the royal arms.

Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of article

I apologise for having reverted some contributions that in my eyes do not respect the construction of this article. The construction is as following:

The reader is presented with the Norwegian coat of arms in its most basic state, i.e. a golden lion on a red shield. (The private Salomonsen version of 1924 (File:Coat of Arms of Norway (1924) non crown.png) is perfect for this purpose.)
Then follows the specific Royal Coat of Arms.
Then follows the specific State Coat of Arms.

This construction is violated when the infobox with the State Coat of Arms is placed in the article's upper corner. That infobox belongs to the section where the State Coat of Arms is described. The first image seen by the reader, introducing him or her to the Norwegian coat of arms, should without doubt be a golden lion on a red shield—and nothing more.

If one desires to introduce the article with an infobox of the State Coat of Arms, one has to change the construction of the article too (and perhaps even the title). — Breadbasket 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the introduction is wrong when you claim that this coat of arms has a "function" as the royal arms. As you probably know, the royal coat of arms has a mantel and the order of St. Olaf as central and identifying parts of the royal arms. I consider this to be a fact both from a heraldic and a legal point of view, and it is demonstrated in the wording of the royal decree in 1905 about the royal arms. The shield alone is the national, state and governmental coat of arms and not the royal arms. May be you don't mean to deny that fact, but the wording you have reverted to is misleading as I read it. Will you reconsider this and revert to the meaning in the wording that I have written? Or may be you can rewrite it to a better wording but with the same meaning as I meant to give it?Hans Cappelen (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Coat of Arms of Denmark to see how to rewrite and arrange the article in a better way than here for Norway as it is now. Hans Cappelen (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to adjust the article on the Danish model. I welcome further comments and suggestions. — Breadbasket 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to have the construction of the article more like The Coat of Arms of Denmark and to let the National arms be placed on top of the article. The legal and heraldic position of the Norwegian king is rather similar to that of the Danish queen.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a Norwegian heraldist I am not happy with, and not convinced by, the way this article is written and edited now. I also mean that it is misleading to use the illustrations in the way it is done in the article. A few examples: I have not seen that the crown prince and the prince are using the arms with the mantle. The national and royal arms are edited and placed somewhat chaotic, and the quality of several newly made illustrations in the article are not satisfying. I recommend all the Wikipedia users working with this article, to do some more work with its wording and illustrations.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried to correct some of the wrong and incomplete information in the article but I am still not content with the language and some of the information. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I have not been able to participate here recently. I suggest that you do what you find scientifically correct or defendable, at the same time as you with a genuine interest try to understand that Norwegian heraldry is more than decrees and praxis. It is also a matter of tradition, ideas, and theoretical possibilities. There is, for example, no doubt that the Crown Princess has a specific coat of arms even though she—at least in public—barely uses it. The Lion + the Crown Princess's Crown (as seen in her monogramme, for example) + mantle + other achievements = her coat of arms. — Breadbasket 18:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I follow Breadbasket here. My opinion is that this is Wikipedia with information to the general public and not with articles about "ideas, and theoretical possibilities" without identifiable sources. Such things are better theorized in other places, as e.g. in Heraldisk Tidsskrift or other periodicals for people especially interested in this field of learning.Hans Cappelen (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal standards

Why are the illustrations of the royal standard and the crown prince's standard changed? The style of the lion is not in accordance with the flags used by the king and the crown prince. You will find the correct ones at the Norwegian Wikipedia in the article Kongeflagg. I feel that it would be a good idea to change it back to the illustrations used before the last change ......... Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to change back now? regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament

I cannot quite understand why the Parliament (Stortinget) is not the most important user of the national coat of arms in the modern democracy of Norway. Why change that without any explanation? The King's position and the powers of the King's Council are both according to the Constitution and the Parliament has the power to change the Constitution. Hans Cappelen (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament is one of three equal power branches, according to the Constitution. That said, the Parliament is, compared with the King (Government) and the Supreme Court, the branch that uses the coat of arms least. They mainly use a logo. No More 18 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greater and lesser variant

These two concepts are not used in Norwegian - instead we use The Royal Arms (kongevåpenet) and The Arms of the Realm (riksvåpenet) as being two different coats of arms. "Greater and lesser arms" are may be words translated from Danish or Swedish. So the words greater variant and lesser variant are somewhat misleading and should be omitted, in my opinion. Hans Cappelen (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These two terms are not used in Norway. I hope that the responsible user(s) or someone else would like to correct it. No More 18 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations and not actually used

Several of the arms in the article are not arms used by the Royal House of Norway or other Norwegian authorities; especially the stylized royal crown (with the demi-lion on top) which is looking more like the style of the Danish or other royal crowns than the crown used in Norway. You may say that they are valid heraldic interpretations of the blazons, but I don't think that is sufficient for the users of an encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Most users will probably like to know how the arms really look - and looked - like. The same is the case with several historic arms in the article. They are interpreted by an artist of our time and are not pictures of the arms as they were used. I suggest to omit all these and replace them with pictures more loyal to the actual use.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]