Talk:Coat of arms of the Washington family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really his?[edit]

Among the many claimed facts that ought to be cited in this article, but aren't, is the one on which the whole thing rests: What shows that George Washington ever in fact had the right to bear these arms? And did he actually do so in his lifetime, whether he had the formal right to or not?

Simply being the arms associated with the Washington family in England isn't sufficient. The claims of dubious companies that want to sell you your "family coat of arms" aside, these matters are governed by the College of Arms and it's improper to just assume them on your own.

If it cannot be shown that George Washington either used these arms or had the right to, this article ought to be moved or deleted. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I can believe this coat of arms is old (late medieval). I have no problem believing the stained glass shown dates to the 1440s. Although a reference would still be nice.

But the article claims the coa originates in the 12th(!) century. While not completely impossible, this would be very, VERY early for a family coat of arms. Add to this that not the slightest evidence is being shown for the claim. WP:REDFLAG. If the coa is really this astonishingly old, kindly produce a decent reference saying as much. --dab (𒁳) 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a family coat of arms. King’s College does not make family coat of arms. Nor have they in past. Contribudor (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although the arms are relatively simple, and this is often an indicator of their antiquity, a 12th century date is *extremely* unlikely, I think the original author is getting confused with the earliest date for the construction of Washington Old Hall. Perhaps we would re-word the article on that basis??? Karlwilcox (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Arms states that a coat of arms is granted to an individual not a name or family. However, If you are descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted as George Washington was the same as I am, you do have a right to use it. As they are granted to an individual, in this case John Washington circa 1365 - 1463, it is somewhat arrogant to to make such statements as George Washington's coat of arms. It is a fact that this coat of arms appears in many places such as church and manors once owned by the Washington family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsfromwashington (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, George Washington is by far the most famous person associated with this coat of arms... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Coat of Arms are not inherited. And designs are different for each family member that order their own “individual” Arms. King’s College of Arms has exclusive say on design.
According to one source this design was for Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave Manor. But I believe it’s Walter Washington. Contribudor (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's armory of 1884 does credit Washington with these arms, and gives a geneaology (as per citation), on line version here [1] Karlwilcox (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Contribudor (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn’t assign this to George Washington use. It only refers to family genealogy. It is not assigned or made for the Washington family. Only one individual. Contribudor (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the King’s College of Arms website that there is no such thing as a Family Arms or Crest. They’re assigned to an individual and not a family. Each family member would have to purchase their own (with discount) individual Arms. The design can be inspired by previous Arms but there is no guarantee the design will be the same. Contribudor (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arms are formally granted to a single individual, but it is understood that their heirs generally also have the right to use such arms. Both William Shakespeare and Kate Middleton became "armigerous" as the result of arms granted to their fathers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. Families cannot use an individual Arms and claim it as their own. Please refer to King’s College of Arms website landing page halfway down. A paragraph details about false claims of “family arms”. A family doesn’t represent Arms nor do Arms represent a family.
George Washington used his ancestor’s arms (though ignorantly) to honor his descent from him. The Arms you see at Sulgrave or Althorp reflect the prestige of someone that lived there. George Washington does not have one of his own for Mount Vernon due government officials are not allowed to except/ possess foreign gifts even though foreigners give them. So he just used his ancestor’s since it was before he became president. Each individual family member can purchase their own from KCOA. They may suggest a likeness similar to their ancestor. But KCOA has exclusive rights to design. None of the Royal family members inherit Arms as for the own from ancestor. Each have their own individual Arms approved by the monarch. The monarch approves all Arms. The KCOA is an official branch of the Monarch and not UK government. Ex. The Prince of Wales Arms are fixed on the official position not the individual. A completely different family could use the Prince of Wales Arms as long as the Monarch approves their official position to represent the Prince of Wales government. King Charles III is no longer Prince of Wales. Current holder is Prince William. This position is not inherited automatically. But King Charles’s individual Arms are his alone that was designed by Queen Elizabeth that she approved. As well as her other family members that have their own individual Arms. 2600:1700:1E40:AD90:595B:C952:87AF:D51D (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but royals are completely different. The basic royal coat of arms is "arms of sovereignty", and if you use them as your own, then you're claiming to be the monarch of the country. Therefore, members of the royal family who are not the actual monarch need to display "differenced" versions of the royal coats of arms. However, this does not apply (or applies in a much more limited way) to non-royal coats of arms in England. See further Talk:Flag of Washington, D.C.#Problems with heraldry section of expanded article (law of arms / heraldry)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I mentioned that. Royal Officeholders arms are for the office not individuals. Each royal member has their own arms separately that is attached to them only just like non-royals. There is NO such things as “family arms”. Kings College of Arms which design and issue Arms do not make family arms and no they are not inherited nor are for family use for themselves.
See further “Badges are separate heraldic devices which, like shields and crests, are particular to an individual or family. Some of the most well known badges are Royal ones such as the Prince of Wales' feathers, and the Queen's crowned Tudor rose which appears on the reverse of the British twenty pence piece. Any person or corporation already entitled to arms may petition for the grant of a badge, and others may do so at the same time as petitioning for a grant of arms and crest.
While arms and crest are personal to their bearers the BADGE may be used by others wishing to show connection or allegiance to the individual or corporation to whom it belongs. Thus it is appropriate for the employees of a company to wear a tie bearing the company's BADGE, but NOT the company's arms.” SOURCE: https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms
So the decades of confusion and in some cases fraud (selling family arms logos on retail items) on use of Arms instead of Badges. But no one says family badges. But that is the only thing they as a family or employee are entitled to claim to use.
I hope I cleared this matter about the decades of confusion of Arms vs Badges. Contribudor (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record there are NO records of George Washington ever petitioning to King’s College of Arms an order for Arms for himself. He only sent an inquiry letter on the Washington family history and if he was connected to any of them. KCOA responded back a letter confirming George’s family connection to a particular Washington family member and that ancestor’s Arms from Sulgrave Manor. Arms of an individual are also patented by grant approved by the monarch. Contribudor (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am far from an expert, so I do not feel like editing this article, but I ended up here after reading this, titled "George Washington's German 'Cousin.'" It mentions the family originating in the twelfth century, and describes Jakob Freiherr (James) von Washington choosing these arms upon becoming a Baron, and adopting GW's supposed motto, Exitus Acta Probat. SaaHc2B (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put the material on the origins of the myth that the coat of arms was the forerunner of the American flag back in. All of it comes from the book Flag: An American Biography, which is well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdBedden (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the blazon make sense?[edit]

The bars are in fess but the mullets are in chief... I don't think that's what it says now, does it? Doesn't read right to me. Can anyone comment? -- Y not? 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the words "in fess", because I didn't understand what they were intended to be doing in that context... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In heraldry, the default way of grouping three objects is two above and one below (i.e., roughly in the form of an upside-down triangle). Thus, if a blazon read “Argent, three Mullets Gules,” it's implicitly understood that they are grouped in that pattern. If instead you want to group the three objects in a straight horizontal line you would say “in fess,” e.g., “Argent, three Mullets in fess Gules.” In the case of the Washington arms, because it is specified that the mullets are in chief (i.e., above the two bars in the middle) the default assumption changes to placing any objects there in a straight line (i.e., in order to make anything placed there fit properly). So “in fess” doesn’t need to be added. If the blazon intended for the mullets at the top of the shield to be placed in the two above, one below format this would have to be specified, usually by saying “Argent two Bars Gules, in chief three Mullets of the second two and one”—the phrase “two and one” indicating how the mullets are to be placed. - Gothamscholar (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Coat of arms of the Washington family. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove “family” out of this headline. Arms are not inherited. Only assigned to one individual. And I’m a descendant of this family. Contribudor (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of George Washington → Washington familial coat of arms – This was in use centuries before George Washington was born, by his ancestors, so it isn't his coat of arms, it is his family's coat of arms --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a less clunky version. "Washington coat of arms" "Washington family coat of arms" maybe, or "Coat of arms of the Washington family". Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, GregJackP's data in the below discussion is enough to convince me that this is near the common name for the page. per Johnbod, "Washington family coat of arms", Support, not the 'clunky' version. Randy Kryn 12:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC), Edit at 10:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. GregJackP Boomer! 17:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as the "common name", since this is a descriptive title (you can mix and match George Washington and coat of arms in many combinations to achieve the same description). And it isn't his personal coat of arms, it is his family's; so the title is incorrect -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your evidence shows it is a descriptive title and there is no common name. It also doesn't invalidate the fact that family members can use the family arms. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Johnbod reply to your comment. Also a phrase like "George Washington's army" does not mean it is a personal levy of GW's, who've sworn fealty unto him as lord and master. So, as I said, it isn't his personal arm's, it's his family's which he can use. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the King’s College of Arms website on first landing page. In a paragraph it details that there is no such thing as a family arms or crest. There never has been. They are only made for an individual and they are not inherited. George Washington diary points this out from a letter from King’s College on the origin of the Arms in question. In the letter it describes the owner of that Arms. And the family tree bio. Contribudor (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Coat of arms of the Washington family. "Coat of arms of ..." seems to be the format most in use for similar articles (see the categories this page is in) so we should keep that. On the question of "George Washington" v "Washington family" I side with latter and largely agree with the IP's comments – the question is one of scope rather than specifically with title is more commonly used in source, and it is clear that the article's scope covers the family's use prior to George. Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are correct. King’s College of Arms stated in letter to George Washington that this Arms belong to Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave Manor in England. But I believe it’s actually Walter Washington of Sulgrave.coat of Arms. This is not a family arms. They are not inherited. George only used this design to honor his ancestor. Nothing more.
    Please refer to King’s College of Arms website on first landing page that points out that there is no such thing as a family coat of Arms or Crests. They do not make them. Nor in past. Contribudor (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
Comment Almost an oppose, as, per the article, this design is used on the Purple Heart as well as serving as the coat of arms and flag of Washington, D.C. So the connection of this coat of arms to George Washington has extended out into society and onto a major medal which features George Washington's image. Does it have any major notoriety removed from George Washington? Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a familial armorial, so the use by things associated with George Washington would be expected because George Washington is a member of the Washington family. The current title doesn't cover the usage prior to George Washtingon's existence, which the article does cover. The usage by US entities would be derivative of GW as a member of the family Washington, so also covered under the proposed title. (same as how noble arms come to be associated with fiefdoms where the noble became ruler) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting proposition. George Washington didn't have a personal coat of arms for himself, but his family did, and because of the significance of George Washington, the coat of arms too is significant. I'll look more into this soon... Dustin (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, from above section. The commonname for the arms is to refer to them as belonging to George Washington. Far more articles link it to George than to his family. A Google check pulls up 638K hits for "Coat of arms of George Washington" and includes:
  • Joseph McMillan, The Arms of George Washington, 1 Am. Herald 7 (2006).
  • John Tepper Marlin, Washington's Arms and the Stars and Stripes -- Believe!, Huffpost, Sept. 25, 2012 ("The Society accepts that George Washington used his coat of arms more than any other president...") (emphasis added).
  • Alan Capps, Coat of Arms, MountVernon.org, n.d., last visited on July 4, 2015 ("An enduring myth surrounding George Washington’s coat of arms is that it provided the basis for the 'Stars and Stripes,' and the Great Seal of the United States.") (emphasis added).
  • Betty Matteson Rhodes, Heraldry Symbolism, n.d., last visited on July 4, 2015.
  • [ Washington Army National Guard Element, Joint Force Headquarters], The Institute of Heraldry, U.S. Army, n.d., last visited on July 4, 2015 ("The design is the crest of the coat of arms of George Washington.") (emphasis added).
There is no need to move the page. GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have cherry-picked these from texts that use several different formulations, several of which emphasize that the arms had a long history before GW. This proves nothing. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the top listings. I'm not going to list all 638,000 sites that used the exact phrase "coat of arms of George Washington" for y'all. It's not my fault that the more commonplace name is the present title, compared to the 8 hits for the exact phrase "Washington familial coat of arms" (6 of those hits are to Wikipedia, the other two use the term "George Washington familial coat of arms."). The move request is unnecessary. GregJackP Boomer! 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

adwick tombstone no proved link means these are not proved to be george washingtons arms[edit]

the article says that

"The Washington coat of arms appears in stone on the grave of a James Washington (d. 1580) in the north chapel of the parish church of Saint Laurence in Adwick-le-Street, South Yorkshire, where he was lord of the manor.[15] However, there is no proved ancestral link between him and George Washington"

now i put it to you that not only is this probably untrue based on local evidence (records and the like), but their tomb bearing these arms is in the local cemetery thus THEIR use of this crest is undeniable and IF the ancestral link is unproven than these ARE NOT PROVED TO BE THE ARMS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON

now Doncaster is a town that has many links with the formation of the USA ....many colony founders lived here (one in particular lived in Austerfield)so this connection is not surprising, and it is entirely plausible that a branch of George Washington's family lived here as this article describes

http://doncasterhistory.co.uk/local-history-3/famous-doncastrians/george-washington/

this isnt proof mind you ....it does put a decent enough case in favour however, but is by no means proof but this ISNT my issue

but what is the issue i am trying to raise is that it is UNDISPUTED that this crest belongs to the family that lived in Adwick, thus if it has been proven that Washington himself used these arms (i dont know may be when the right to bear arms was drawn up it wasnt guns he was talking about ......just my joke lol) than the link wouldnt be disputed would it?

Tony Spike (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Washington_family&oldid=1206729576"