File talk:Duke of Wellington Arms.svg
Seems to be different version at Image:Armas duques vitória.png ... AnonMoos 23:34, 2 December 2007
- Yes. There are heraldic differences between the two: the color of the dots is different, and the other image has a star in the center. The star is probably a mark of cadency to differentiate his shield from his father's (which would have been inherited by his oldest brother after his father died). The star is the normal mark of cadency for a third son, which he was. However, the Handbook to English Heraldry on Project Gutenberg says that when he was given the Augmentation of Honour, it was added to his paternal shield, or the shield of his father, which would not have had the star (p. 205). Also, a later book published in 1978 (cited on the file page) gave the entire blazon and had no mention of the star. As for the dots, there are a lot of arms on the Internet that are derived from Wellington's arms that have white dots (example), and the book cited on the file page blazoned them as plates, a.k.a. white dots. I hope that clears it up. Ipankonin 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
ducally gorged
[edit]
The lions are suppose to be ducally gorged. Tinynanorobots (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This image is right
[edit]
NOTE: This image is incorrect. The official coat of arms is shown on the |Duke of Wellington's Regiment website. located here:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=207
Wrong note his image is right, the variant with a star is former version. Text shown at the cited link:
The Regimental insignia incorporates the lion, from the Duke's crest, and the mullet (5 pointed white star) which was placed upon the shoulder of the lion. The mullet had remained on the crest of Arthur Wellesley to denote he was the third son of the Earl of Mornington, it was not removed until both his elder brothers passed away [1845], at which time he became the Earl of Mornington.
--Heralder (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
