User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
-- 10:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Coronet without chapeau of the Princesses of York
Dear Mr. D. E. Mophon,
The difference of the two version are indeed odd- but not incorrect. The old version is my own interpretation of the blazons of the two princesses' Coat of Arms, whilst the new version is based on the version as released and created by the College of Arms (This version can be seen here). Both of these versions are heraldically correct, as they both adhere to the blazon as given. The difference here was a change in artistic choice entirely on my own part.
It is very difficult for me as an artist to please everyone, as an expert in matters of heraldry I know that both versions are identical and interchangeable. People unfamiliar with heraldry will however see the difference and frequently make complaints on my talk page as such that; I was not faithful to the College's depiction or why it doesn't look exactly like this or that etc. etc. As a result I decided to change the two coats of arms to make it more similar to those of the College version. I do so in order to mitigate the potential complaint I might get. You however have turned this rationale on its head and want the coat of arms to go back to the original version. Please understand the position I am in; I am merely depicting a piece of heraldry, which is to be used for encyclopedic purposes only, it has never been my intention to replace or replicate the versions as issued by the College of Arms. After all they are the ultimate authority on this matter, and nothing I do will ever be as good or as legitimate. My goal is to create an acceptable version (more importantly free of copyright) for use by the general populace as a means of education.
That issue aside, I frequently get comments from users regarding my work, when they point out a mistake, I am very happy to correct them. However in this case I am beginning to get rather sick and tired of having to point out each and every time the issues concerning what the blazon stipulates and what liberties the artist could make in a coat of arms. This is basic heraldry, and I do not have the patience to be a teacher to everybody.
The issue you raise concerning the chapeau sounds legitimate, but in actuality is not. The coronets of royal princes and princesses are regulated by Royal Warrant of King Charles II in 1661 and then later by King George V in 1911 and 1917 (Text of all the warrants are here). None of these warrants mentioned a chapeau of Gules lined with ermine and tassels Or. However as we can see (and know) a chapeau does exist and is often if not always depicted, as this is the case in an actual physical headgear. However in terms of heraldry they represent and symbolizes nothing, as oppose to the coronet itself, which tells people the rank of the royals by the composition of leaves, crosses and fleu-di-lys. After all all British coronets have the same identical chapeau, those of peers and princes. In the College of Arms' version the coronets were depicted without the caps, I don't know why this is. But essentially it makes no difference what so ever, because I can still see from the coronets themselves that the Princesses are the grandchildren of the Sovereign through the male-line, this is all that matters.
The final point is that if my original versions did contain a chapeau, another user from somewhere else would come along with a link to the above image and then question me is why this is the case. Then they would say: Why did I not make my version similar to the College? How dare me for taking liberty with the Princesses' coats of arms! Then they would revert my carefully drawn and researched work to another version or worse of all, mutilate and cut out my work to create something entire different. All of this to suite their own stylistic preferences, all of which means nothing in heraldry, nothing what so ever. Even less so to me, although aesthetic is important, the goal here is to inform- something which I know full well I have done by following the blazon to the letter.
I will not change anything back, as I have said the versions are identical and both heraldically correct. To me the look of them are not important. However, it does bother me when someone inevitably complains to me about it. From now on if they ever do so about these two coats of arms; I will direct them here, as you have taken the decision to change them yourself, and that decision is now in your hands. I am sorry if I sound angry (I'm not, I only sound like I am angry, because I am being defensive), but my patience has quite run out with Wikicommons (not at you personally, but the general attitude towards me). This is the main reason for my absence of late, furthermore my house is still very much flooded and my internet connection is sporadic at best (this explains the late reply). Sodacan (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)