Michael Y. Medvedev:
"My private suggestion regarding the arms of Francis I… No, he did not ask me, but some FB friends did 
gselvester;97861 wrote:
I have even heard rumors that something totally new will be employed as the external ornament for the pope; neither a tiara or a mitre.
The prospect of that is almost nauseating. What could possibly be chosen, a white galero with 42 tassels?
Alexander Schrenk;97877 wrote:
The prospect of that is almost nauseating. What could possibly be chosen, a white galero with 42 tassels?
I certainly hope not !! :shock:
Deacons - none
Priests - 2 (1 each side)
Deans, etc - 3 (1-2 each side)
Mosignori and Bishops - 12 (1-2-3 each side)
Archbishops - 20 (1-2-3-4 each side)
Patriarchs and Cardinals - 30 (1-2-3-4-5 each side)
??? - 42 (1-2-3-4-5-6 each side) :facepalm:
Dragan Ćirić;97876 wrote:
Michael Y. Medvedev:
"My private suggestion regarding the arms of Francis I… No, he did not ask me, but some FB friends did
Okay, send this to the Vatican quick. Like, right now!
Kenneth Mansfield;97865 wrote:
I will concede that the arms did not convey the status of an archbishop, but is it necessary that he should use the external additaments of his rank when using his coat of arms? Did they convey some other message, indicating that he was something else entirely?
Yes, they did. Without the cross he was displaying the arms of a cardinal who was a priest and not ordained to the episcopacy. The external ornaments are part of the achievement and are not optional.
gselvester;97806 wrote:
I had a conversation just last night with a friend about the coat of arms of the pope-to-be. He asked me if I thought the mitre with hints of the tiara used by Benedict XVI would be used again to ensign the coat of arms or if we’d see a flat out return of the tiara. I told him honestly that I certainly hoped that the tiara as a fitting heraldic symbol (regardless of whether or not it is actually worn) would be used on the new pope’s coat of arms. John Paul I famously refused to be crowned and yet there was never any discussion of not including the tiara on his arms. John Paul II likewise never even contemplated not using the crown on his arms. So, I hoped that since the tiara and keys remain the quintessential symbol of the Holy See and the Church as well as the Vatican City-State it would, indeed, be used on the coat of arms of the new pope.
However, I am not at all convinced that will be the case. I think the same people who pushed for the use of the mitre on the arms of Benedict XVI will do the same for the new pope and include in their argument that Benedict XVI effectively did away with the tiara entirely especially as his arms have been widely used and recognized for the past 8 years. So, while I fervently hope that we see a return of the tiara on the papal coat of arms I don’t actually expect it. I’m hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
I will be the happiest of men if I am proven completely wrong in this expectation.
Yes there are certainly precedent in using headgear to ensign one’s shield without acctualy wearing it. Fore instance no King of Sweden has been crowned since Oscar II who died in 1907. But his successors up to this day have used the Royal Crown on their Arms. And for us more humble armigers, not many of us have acctualy worn a helmet but we are happy to display one on top of our Arms (if so permitted).
We shoould try to remember which is the dog and which is the tail—may not always result in the best heraldic result, but that’s the tail. (Having said which, I do hope they come up with a nice result)
People should keep in mind that the sunburst could easily remain in the pope’s arms because in addition to being from the arms of the Society of Jesus the flag of Argentina has a sun on it as does the heraldic achievement of Argentina.
So, if he removes the other stuff on it and uses just the sun it still alludes to his order as well as his native place.
As has already been pointed out other popes who were Religious used the arms of their orders in their papal arms improperly. This is a case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" insofar as the bad heraldic practices of the past would be used as justification for doing it again in this instance.
Marcus K;97884 wrote:
Yes there are certainly precedent in using headgear to ensign one’s shield without acctualy wearing it. Fore instance no King of Sweden has been crowned since Oscar II who died in 1907. But his successors up to this day have used the Royal Crown on their Arms. And for us more humble armigers, not many of us have acctualy worn a helmet but we are happy to display one on top of our Arms (if so permitted).
The Kings and Queens of the Netherlands have been doing that since 1815, they were not crowned, just took an oath of office, but still used a royal crown in their arms (multiple in fact in the case of the first three kings)
From the Holy See Press Office on March 15th: 13.19 GMT: Fr Lombardi: Pope Francis still has not finalised his motto and coat of arms.
Alexander Schrenk;97880 wrote:
Okay, send this to the Vatican quick. Like, right now!
Where is the "Like" button when one needs one.
I find the escutcheon minimalist, bold, and easily identifiable. If any, some of the best arms are the simplest, including Pope Benedict XII (argent, a bordure gules).
I am aware that at least one pope who used a chief of his order. Oddly enough, he is a Jesuit-trained pope in the person of Clement XIV, who joined the Franciscans… and later suppressed the Jesuits. Arms linked on Wikimedia Commons here.
If the use of one’s order’s insignia as a charge on the field can be considered improper, does the same apply to popes who retain an element from their last-held sees (e.g., at least Bl. John XXIII and John Paul I retained the chief of Venice on their arms)?
Some changes were done in the coat of arms of Pope Francis: the Vatican website has a new version (the other was a draft) with an eight rays star, a more realistic drawing of the flower of nard and the motto inserted in a riband.
