[ANSTHRLD] Royal Crowns (was Re: arms - your thoughts)

Tim McDaniel tmcd at panix.com
Fri Aug 22 13:04:21 PDT 2008

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Diane Rudin <serena1570 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Alden Drake <alden_drake at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> It could also be argued that since former Crowns are considered
>> "royal family", crowns worn by them would be considered "royal
>> crowns".
> Nope.  The only people who wear crowns are monarchs.  All of the
> other nobility, regardless of how their nobility was obtained, wear
> coronets.
> [Note that I know darn well that these are not the only definitions
> of these words, but they ARE the relevant definitions for these
> words as used in this context.]

In the context of SCA heraldry: crowns get no difference from
coronets; I don't yet know of an SCA precedent that differentiates a
royal crown from a spotted or herbaceous crown, though perhaps the
English definition suggested by Brooke-Little (closed crown, wasn't
it?) controls; the only crown/coronet details I know of are that
strawberry leaves imply a ducal coronet and embattling implies a
comital coronet (from memory).

Daniel Lincoln
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com

More information about the Heralds mailing list