Talk:Tudor rose

Tudor rose is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Moved this because the capitalised "Tudor Rose" would indicate a brand name or the title of something. Deb 11:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.

Their logo, is that allowed on this page? Mallerd (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical terms - italics or quotes?

Some technical heraldry terms are in italics in this article and some are in ordinary type within inverted commas. Is there any norm for such heraldic terms? Plain text within quotes looks more natural to my eye, but I am no expert on the treatment of heraldic terms At all events, the practice should be consistent within the article. Tim riley (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italics tend to be used, since most heraldic terms are of foreign origin (old French, Latin, etc.). Zacwill16 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tudor rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Identification

At the time of my writing, this articles contains the text

"The Tudor rose was used in the coat of arms of William, Count of Schaumburg-Lippe.[9]"

but if you trace Footnote 9, those aren't TUDOR roses. They have no white for petals. They are "Lancastrian roses" if his relationship to Great Britain is involved, or just "roses" if it isn't. They lack any white. That sentence is false and should be removed. Since Wikipedia might consider me to be too impolite for their rules if I do so, I shall refrain now from the strongest possible denouncement of that editor for intellectual incompetence when they have read this entire article and STILL failed to grasp the CENTRAL point, which is that "Tudor roses" MUST in some way include white from the petals of Yorkist roses.2604:2000:C682:2D00:4983:DD1:23A9:990 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Can the Gallery find examples of Tudor roses with split petals?

I believe that I have seen, although I cannot now find, at least one example of a Tudor rose with five petals, each petal divided by a radial line into a red half and another half that is, but for being colored white, the radial mirror-image. The PROBABLE explanation is an existing Yorkist rose with five white petals, rendered in a three-dimensional medium (not flat paint but stone, wood, or plaster) where it would have been very difficult (vs. the ease in flat paint) to add an entire new inner ring of five petals. That being the case, no sculptural change was made, and the rose was simply repainted with each petal split. (Before starting, one would see the impossibility of coloring petals alternating red and white without coming round to end with two adjacent petals of the same color.) It's rather like the plant that is, down the middle, half-rose, half-thistle, for the joining of England and Scotland (or the earlier joining of their Monarchies). I believe I have seen this split-petal Tudor rose. Can someone find one and add it to the Gallery? Thanks, if so.2604:2000:C682:2D00:4983:DD1:23A9:990 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]