Talk:Tincture: Difference between revisions
From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary |
(man proper) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ought reference (somewhere) be made to the use of '''white''' in English heraldry, for the [[label]] attached to the Royal Arms for the Heir Apparent, or does this only commence after [[period]] ? |
Ought reference (somewhere) be made to the use of '''white''' in English heraldry, for the [[label]] attached to the Royal Arms for the Heir Apparent, or does this only commence after [[period]] ?<br> |
||
It is mentioned on the page for [[label]]. |
|||
==Proper== |
|||
See [[Talk:Proper]] for my objections to saying that mythical animals can't be proper. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:27, 13 Dec 2005 (CST) |
|||
==Man "proper"== |
|||
Saying a "man proper would be pale pink (in Europe at least)" is extremely questionable as there would be no question whatsoever in period of a man not being shown this way and not for some time after period. The only exception are some very, very unusual (and rather avant-garde, if you will) contemporary emblazonments. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 10:44, 16 Dec 2005 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:44, 17 December 2005
Ought reference (somewhere) be made to the use of white in English heraldry, for the label attached to the Royal Arms for the Heir Apparent, or does this only commence after period ?
It is mentioned on the page for label.
Proper
See Talk:Proper for my objections to saying that mythical animals can't be proper. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:27, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
Man "proper"
Saying a "man proper would be pale pink (in Europe at least)" is extremely questionable as there would be no question whatsoever in period of a man not being shown this way and not for some time after period. The only exception are some very, very unusual (and rather avant-garde, if you will) contemporary emblazonments. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:44, 16 Dec 2005 (CST)
