Our Pontecorvo predicament

 

Credit: Jacques63 

Credit: Sodacan

Not sure how ChatGPT can know anything about obscure points of Swedish history and heraldry, so you probably have to do your own research on this one - not sure how, though. Still, an intriguing conversation! The problem: the greater coat of arms of Sweden (not shown above) include the French imperial eagle associated with Napoleon...which is very strange for a number of reasons. Or is it? The AI has the floor! 

Is there any formal rule in heraldry saying that a coat of arms, once recieved or created, can never be changed?

Short answer: no — there is no such universal rule in heraldry.
In fact, throughout heraldic history, arms were frequently altered, differenced, quartered, augmented, or even completely replaced.

The idea that “a coat of arms can never be changed” is a modern myth.

Here is how it actually works.

---

1. What heraldry really is

Heraldry is not one international law system.
It is a group of regional legal–customary traditions, mainly:

• England & Wales

• Scotland

• France

• Holy Roman Empire

• Iberia

• Italy

Each has different rules — but none include an absolute rule of immutability.

---

2. Arms were designed to change

Medieval arms evolved by:

Reason	What happened
Marriage	Quartering or impaling
Inheritance	Adding other arms
New titles	Augmentations
Cadency	Marks for younger sons
Royal favor	New charges added
Politics	Arms modified to show loyalty

If arms were immutable, none of this could exist.

---

3. Even kings changed arms

English royal arms changed repeatedly:

• Norman lions

• Plantagenet lions

• French fleurs-de-lis added

• French arms removed

Each reflected political claims.

So if the King can change arms, so can anyone.

---

4. What is fixed

What is fixed is:

A specific grant of arms defines one legal coat of arms.

You may not change that one specific design and still call it that same grant.

But you are allowed to:

• receive a new grant

• have arms differenced

• combine arms

• abandon arms

• adopt new ones

Heraldry is a system of identity, not frozen art.

---

5. Where the myth comes from

The idea of immutability comes from:

• Victorian antiquarianism

• 20th-century hobbyist heraldry

• a misunderstanding of legal identity

People confuse:

“you cannot falsify arms”
with
“arms can never change”

Those are very different things.

---

6. The real rule

The true rule of heraldry is:

You may not misrepresent arms — but you may lawfully change, add to, or replace them through proper authority or custom.

That has always been the case.

---

In one line

Heraldry is a living legal language of identity, not a fossilized logo.

A coat of arms is meant to grow with a family — just like a name, a title, or a history.

If you want, I can also explain how this works differently in English, Scottish, and continental heraldic law — they handle change in fascinatingly different ways.

The crown prince Karl Johan, later king of Sweden and Norway, kept his coat of arms as Prince of Pontecorvo - which showed the French imperial eagle - even after breaking with Napoleon and joining the anti-Napoleon Coalition. This even after he had relinquished any formal claims on Pontecorvo itself.

Yes — and that case is one of the best real-world demonstrations of why heraldry is about legal identity, not current political allegiance or territorial claims.

You are referring to Karl XIV Johan, born Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who had been made Prince of Pontecorvo by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1806.

Let’s unpack why he kept the eagle.

---

1. The Prince of Pontecorvo arms were his personal identity

When Napoleon created Bernadotte Prince of Pontecorvo, he did two things:

• He gave him a title

• He gave him a coat of arms

That coat of arms — with the French imperial eagle — was not a claim to the territory.
It was the heraldic sign of a Napoleonic princely dignity granted to him personally.

Even after Bernadotte:

• broke with Napoleon

• renounced Pontecorvo

• joined the Coalition

he did not cease to be the person to whom that dignity had once been granted.

Heraldry records what you are, not whom you serve today.

---

2. Why keeping the eagle was actually correct heraldry

If Bernadotte had removed the eagle, he would have been falsely rewriting his own legal identity.

He was:

“Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, formerly Prince of Pontecorvo”

That fact remained true forever.

Heraldry does not erase past legitimate honors — it accumulates them.

So his Swedish royal arms became:

Swedish kingship plus Napoleonic princely honor

This is exactly how heraldry is supposed to work.

---

3. This is not unusual — it is medieval logic

European dynasties are full of this:

English kings kept:

• French lilies
  long after they no longer ruled France

German princes kept:

• Polish eagles

• Italian crowns

• Burgundian devices

long after the lands were gone.

Because arms do not mean:

“I rule this land”

They mean:

“I hold this dignity in my lineage.”

---

4. Why it mattered politically

Karl XIV Johan keeping the Napoleonic eagle sent a subtle but powerful message:

I am not Napoleon’s puppet —
but I am his equal.

It said:

• I did not reject my past

• I integrated it into my kingship

This made him a legitimate European monarch, not a Swedish puppet-king.

---

The deep principle

Heraldry is genealogical memory, not current propaganda.

You cannot undo:

• a lawful title

• a lawful grant of arms

by changing alliances.

Karl XIV Johan’s arms were telling the truth about who he was —
a Napoleonic prince who became a Scandinavian king.

And that is exactly what heraldry exists to preserve.

If you want, I can show you how Swedish heraldic law treated this and why the Riddarhuset accepted it without controversy — it’s a fascinating case.

Yes, please.

Great — this is where the Karl Johan case becomes really illuminating, because Swedish heraldry handled it in a very principled, very medieval way.

We are dealing with Karl XIV Johan, formerly Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who brought into Sweden a coat of arms that included a Napoleonic imperial eagle — the personal emblem of Napoleon Bonaparte — even after he became Napoleon’s enemy.

Why was this accepted?

---

1. Sweden had no doctrine of “political purity” in heraldry

Swedish heraldic law, administered by the Riddarhuset (House of Nobility), follows the continental rule:

A coat of arms is a legal sign of personal dignity, not a declaration of political loyalty.

Once a person has legitimately received arms, they are:

• hereditary

• inalienable

• permanent

unless revoked by a lawful authority.

Napoleon was the lawful sovereign of France in 1806.
His grant of the Pontecorvo arms was therefore valid forever, even if Napoleon later became Sweden’s enemy.

Sweden had no legal right to erase that.

---

2. The Swedish crown actually validated the Napoleonic arms

When Bernadotte was adopted into the Swedish royal house in 1810, his foreign princely arms were:

• not deleted

• not replaced

• not subordinated

They were quartered into the Swedish royal arms.

This was done officially when he became Crown Prince and later king.

In other words:

Sweden recognized the Napoleonic dignity as part of his lawful personal identity.

This is why the French eagle appears on:

• Swedish royal standards

• royal seals

• Bernadotte dynasty heraldry

even after Napoleon’s fall.

---

3. Why this was politically safe

By 1813, Bernadotte was fighting Napoleon — but he was doing so as:

a sovereign prince of European rank.

Keeping the Pontecorvo arms said:

• I was not a usurper

• I was not a deserter

• I am a prince who changed alliances

That made him diplomatically legitimate to:

• Austria

• Britain

• Russia

They dealt with princes — not turncoats.

---

4. Why Swedish nobles had no objection

At the Riddarhuset, nobles are registered by:

• lineage

• arms

• legal dignity

not ideology.

Bernadotte’s arms were impeccable by European law.

Whether Napoleon was later hated was irrelevant.

Heraldry is not moral.
It is archival.

---

5. The deeper European rule

This reflects a very old principle:

A legitimate grant of arms can never be invalidated by later politics.

Only:

• the original granting authority

• or a lawful superior

can revoke arms.

Napoleon fell.
No one inherited the legal authority to cancel his grants.

So Bernadotte’s eagle was untouchable.

---

Why this matters

Karl XIV Johan’s coat of arms is a fossil of history.

It tells us:

• where he came from

• how he rose

• what powers once recognized him

That is exactly what heraldry exists to do.

If you want, I can also show you how this same rule explains:

• British kings still bearing French lilies

• Russian tsars keeping Mongol symbols

• Habsburgs keeping Burgundian lions

It’s all the same medieval logic.

But was Napoleon really accepted as the legitimate ruler of France by the Coalition?

Short answer: yes — grudgingly, conditionally, and legally — until 1814.
And that is exactly why Bernadotte’s Napoleonic arms remained valid.

Let’s be precise.

---

1. Napoleon was not treated as a “mere usurper”

From 1804 (when he crowned himself Emperor) until 1814, the European powers did not treat Napoleon as an outlaw regime in the legal sense.

They:

• signed treaties with him

• exchanged ambassadors

• recognized his titles

• married into his dynasty

For example:

• Austria married him to Marie Louise

• Russia negotiated with him at Treaty of Tilsit

• Britain signed peace treaties with him (Amiens, 1802)

This is full de jure recognition.

They hated him — but they accepted that he was the Emperor of France.

---

2. This is why his titles were legally real

Because Napoleon was recognized as sovereign, he had the lawful right to:

• create princes

• grant coats of arms

• establish noble houses

So when Napoleon Bonaparte made Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte Prince of Pontecorvo, that act had international legal validity.

Other states were not free to pretend it never happened.

---

3. Even after they fought him, they still accepted his acts

This is the crucial legal point.

When Napoleon was defeated in 1814:

• the Allies restored the Bourbons

• but they did NOT nullify Napoleonic titles or marriages

• they did NOT declare his acts void

Why?

Because that would have meant:

France had no legitimate government for 15 years.

That would have collapsed:

• treaties

• property rights

• borders

• marriages

So instead, they treated Napoleon as a lawful but defeated ruler.

---

4. That’s why Bernadotte’s eagle survived

By the time Karl XIV Johan became king of Sweden (1818), the European system had already decided:

Napoleon = lawful former emperor
His grants = valid historical facts

So Sweden was not “honoring Napoleon”.

It was recognizing legal continuity.

---

5. The key distinction

Europe did not say:

Napoleon was never legitimate.

They said:

Napoleon was legitimate — and we defeated him.

That distinction is why his heraldic and dynastic acts survived.

---

Final truth

The Coalition denied Napoleon’s right to keep ruling.

They never denied his right to have ruled.

And that is why the French eagle still sits quietly inside the Swedish royal arms today — not as a political symbol, but as a legal fossil of European history.

So where are they?

 

This is a long but somewhat interesting video on the Wild Man, a character known from European folklore and mythology. There are also some excurses to North Africa and the Middle East. Yes, that would be Enkidu and the Biblical Esau, who was born hairy. In fact, there is even more than this to cover. For instance, legends of giants. Or even pygmies, if you want to go there. There is a Swedish/Finnish connection, too: a Wild Man is depicted in the coat of arms of Lapland.

But back to the video. The content-creator treats the Wild Man folklore as genuine reports of Bigfoot-like creatures. From this, he draws the conclusion that Bigfoot is more human-like than we´ve been lead to believe. Above all, Bigfoot is real and has been around since the dawn of time, perhaps as an alternate lineage of Homo?

Of course, to believe this, you have to first believe that modern Sasquatch reports are genuine. The Wild Man is virtually impossible to distinguish from *other* creatures of myth and folklore I assume the content-creator doesn´t believe are real. What about fire-breathing dragons, thunderbirds that can abduct adult moose, or enormously large lindorms in the Swedish countryside? There is zero evidence that such things ever existed, in fact, it´s not even clear whether they *can* exist. Yet, there are alleged eye witnesses (see my review of Hyltén-Cavallius´ 1885 book on the famed lindorm elsewhere on this blog). 

It´s not clear to me that the modern Bigfoot reports are any better (or worse) than equally modern reports about even more fantastic creatures, such as thunderbirds, dog-men, or the Jersey Devil. And they, too, have analogues or even direct precursors in mythology and folklore. Are *they* real, too? 

Ultimately, we have to ask: if the Wild Men (and, I suppose, Women) are real, well, where are they? There is no archeological evidence that such tribes of people persisted into the Middle Ages or Early Modern Period (yes, medieval and modern archeology is a thing). Nobody has found any bodies. The only thing we have are stories, many of which can be given alternative explanations. Yes, they are myths about liminality, not literal accounts of meetings with surviving Paranthropi. The extremely fierce "Gorillai" encountered by Hanno in Africa could have been chimpanzees. The se´irim are Hebrew demons, not hairy savages. Well, at least not according to Wikipedia! 

And of course there is no evidence for dragons, werewolves or super-sized birds of prey either. 

My main problem with (modern) Bigfoot is that people keep seeing the squatches everywhere across North America - including the plains of Kansas, at tourist hot spots, at highways, or even in suburbia - and yet there is almost no tangible evidence that the creature exists at all. Yet, scientists have tracked down rare but real animals such as the Bili ape. This suggests that we´re either dealing with an extremely rare species hyped by the media (so people think they see it everywhere), pure fantasy all the way down, or some kind of paranormal phenomenon. 

The YouTube channel "Cabin in the Woods" is open to paranormal explanations. But the Wild Man mythology doesn´t depict a woodland sprite, but a flesh-and-blood creature with a rather broad range. And that´s surely the least likely explanation to this problematique.         

Homo salvadego

 

Credit: Leonid 2

Look, I find Bigfoot! Right there, on the coat of arms of...Norrbotten County in Sweden?! Woooow!!!

Well, actually

 

An usurper flashing three crowns!

So I decided to look into the origins and meaning of the three crowns shown in the Swedish coat of arms. Or coats of arms (in the plural). The reason? Denmark recently dropped the three crowns from *its* royal coat of arms. See an earlier blog post!

Finding out the symbolism of the three crowns turned out to be more difficult than I expected. In middle school, I heard a "folk interpretation" of the three crowns: they supposedly stand for Svealand, Götaland and Norrland. That is, the three geographical regions of Sweden. However, this can´t be the original meaning, since Sweden had a different territorial extension before 1809. Nor is it the official meaning even today. Indeed, the three crowns doesn´t seem to have any particular legal meaning. They are simply the traditional symbol of the Swedish kingdom, period.

Diving into the matter, it turns out that the 13th century king Erik Eriksson (later mockingly known as Erik the Lisping and Limping) used a royal coat of arms showing three crowned lions. This was obviously inspired by the Danish coat of arms. Of course, it doesn´t explain why there are exactly three lions (and hence crowns) rather than two or just one. I mean, only one man can be king! Erik Eriksson (king 1234-1250) was succeeded by Valdemar Birgersson (king 1250-1275) whose royal coat of arms shows three crowned leopards. Don´t even ask about the distinction between "lion" and "leopard" in heraldry!

Next in line is Magnus Ladulås (king 1275-1290), who used a crowned lion surrounded by three crowns on his seal. Then, it becomes more interesting. During the long reign of king Magnus Eriksson (1319-1364), the three crowns themselves became an emblem for...something. Apparently, there is a fresco in France (!) showing the coats of arms of various rulers and kingdoms represented at a 1336 summit in the papal enclave of Avignon to discuss the calling of a new crusade. The Swedish coat of arms is evidently a shield with three crowns. This could be the earliest evidence for its usage as a "national" symbol. 

We also have coins minted by Magnus Eriksson´s government from 1350, showing a ring with three crowns. However, there is *some* confusion over the exact meaning of the crowns. At the height of his power, Magnus Eriksson was king of three kingdoms (Sweden, Norway and Scania). Is it possible that *this* is the meaning of the three crowns? By all accounts, there was nothing wrong with Magnus Eriksson´s self-confidence. He un-ironically believed himself to be born under a lucky star, claimed to be "God´s favorite", compared himself to king Solomon, etc. Together, his three kingdoms comprised the largest territory in Europe (nominally even including Greenland). Sounds like just the kind of person who would want to flash his success on coinage! 

The first definitive evidence of the three crowns being used as a "national" symbol for Sweden (rather than as a personal symbol) comes from the reign of Albrekt of Mecklenburg (1364-1389). This is somewhat ironic, since Albrekt is universally seen as perhaps the worst monarch in Swedish history, an usurper whose German mercenaries plundered the country in the aftermath of the Great Plague. Albrekt was also supported by a brotherhood of Baltic pirates! However, it may have been precisely due to his somewhat shaky legal status that Albrekt wanted to become associated with the three crowns. It was royal propaganda to prop up his "legitimate" claim to the Swedish crown.

During the 15th century Kalmar Union, both Margareta and Erik of Pomerania used three crowns on their seals. However, I´m not sure if this is supposed to be a seal only used in Sweden or whether it was an informal symbol for the entire union, which did indeed comprise three realms: Sweden, Norway and Denmark (with the latter being strongest). In Sweden, the three crowns were certainly seen as a symbol for Sweden only. They were used that way by notorious on-off king and regent Karl Knutsson Bonde.

After the dissolution of the Kalmar Union in 1523, Denmark kept the three crowns in its greater coat of arms. The usual interpretation is that the three crowns in this context do symbolize the halcyon days of the Union. But that sounds unlikely, since both Denmark and Norway had their own fields in the coat of arms. So it probably does symbolize Sweden specifically and could therefore be interpreted as a veiled Danish claim on the Swedish throne!

Meanwhile, Sweden continued using the three crowns as a symbol for the Swedish kingdom. But - once again - why on earth are there *three* crowns in the coat of arms? There have been all kinds of weird speculations about this, my "favorite" being a 17th century claim that they stand for the Norse gods Odin, Thor and Frey, whose idols in the Uppsala pagan temple were supposedly crowned...yeah, whatever! 

The most likely explanation I´ve come across is that the crowns stand for the three Magi, who were seen as three holy kings during the Middle Ages. The German town of Cologne (Köln) was an important place of pilgrimage during the High Middle Ages and supposedly housed the relics of the Magi. This could explain the obsession with *three* royal symbols: three lions, three leopards, three crowns. King Richard Lionheart had three lions in his coat of arms, and the mythological king Arthur was said to have had a blue shield adorned with three golden crowns.

So there you (probably) have it. It´s actually a symbol for Mesopotamian astrologers mentioned in a holy scripture of some obscure Jewish sect 2000 years ago. You know, the Gospel of Luke...

Everything is well in the world.  

Fact check: Mostly false

 

There is a persistent rumor, even in the mainstream media, that the Danish king Frederik X changed the royal coat of arms of Denmark as a direct response to Donald Trump´s territorial designs on Greenland. Even Danish pundits are pushing the rumor.

There is just one problem: it doesn´t seem to be true. The changes in question were recommended by a royal commission already on January 20, 2024. They were officially announced on December 20, 2024. Trump´s demand on Greenland came two days later and wasn´t widely reported until December 23.

The changes in the Danish royal coat of arms didn´t take effect until January 1, 2025. This probably fuelled the speculations that the change was a deliberate snub to Trump. The king apparently *did* call for increased unity between the various parts of the Danish Commonwealth in a New Year statement, which (of course) could be interpreted as a snub against both Trump and the premier of Greenland (who demands full independence for the island).     

Finally, note that Frederik became king on January 14, 2024. It´s therefore logical that he would update the royal coat of arms, which was heavily anachronistic. The three crowns could be seen both as a symbol of the medieval Kalmar Union and as a veiled claim on the Swedish throne. Since Sweden and Denmark haven´t been enemy nations for two centuries, the presence of the three crowns in the Danish royal coat of arms looks frankly weird. 

To sum up: when the three crowns (whatever they might mean) were removed, both the polar bear (Greenland) and the ram (the Faroe Islands) became more prominent. But Trump has made no demands on the Faroe Islands. So no, the change has nothing to do with Trump, but I can´t really blame the Danes for spreading the rumor... 

 

Sveaborg

 

Intressant på något sätt. Typ.  

Sveaborgsmärke under klubban

ÄNTLIGEN

 

Om jutarna och deras lögner... 

Igår dog Kalmarunionen för gott

The lesser dependencies of Mauritius

 

You learn new shit every day. I´m a notorious "flag nerd", but I completely missed this one! The coat of arms of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) includes the Latin motto "In tutela nostra Limuria", which is supposed to mean "Lemuria in our trust"! 

Yes, Lemuria. The imaginary continent of Lemuria, here with the more unusual alternative spelling Limuria. The above illustration is from the website of the BIOT administration. 

Just this Thursday, the UK announced that they will hand over control of the BIOT (a.k.a. the Chagos Archipelago) to Mauritius...but the large US military base at the main island of Diego Garcia will remain for another 99 years. So nothing really changed. Except, I suppose, that this peculiar coat of arms is soon history...  

Runes of death

 

Interesting introductions to Nazi symbolism, including SS symbols. Note that the "rune of death" is identical to the later peace symbol used by the CND! Probably a co-incidence, right? 

Only available in Slovak

This is probably the most obscure book I will ever review here on my blog.

"Slovenske Mestske a Obecne Erby" is a book by Jozef Novak, published in 1967 in Bratislava by Slovenska Archivna Sprava. It was the first volume in a series called "Edicia Pomocne Vedy Historicke a Archivnictvo".

Yes, folks, we're talking about a book published in Communist Czechoslovakia.

The book deals with heraldry, more specifically the coats of arms of Slovak towns and villages. It's written in a relatively accesible style (at least if Slovak is your first language), but the author is obviously a scholar. The notes abound with references to archival sources, including medieval documents, seals and earlier works on Slovak heraldry. Or rather Hungarian ditto, since Slovakia was an integrated part of the Hungarian Kingdom until 1918.

The author explains the evolution of Hungarian heraldry in some detail. Originally, Hungarian towns used coats of arms based on those of the ruling dynasty (the House of Arpad). Later, this became impossible due to frequent dynastic conflicts and the rise of powerful local rulers. To feign neutrality, the towns therefore preferred to show patron saints on their coats of arms. A third phase saw the emergence of distinct town symbols, beholden neither to the ruling house nor the Church, reflecting the increased power and confidence of the towns during the Early Modern Period. 

Apparently, the coat of arms of Banska Stiavnica is unique in Slovakian history, since it adopted a distinct town symbol already during the 13th century, no doubt because of its immense economic importance (silver mining). 

During the 19th century, coats of arms were seen as antiquated and "feudal", and the local governments often stopped using them altogether. Those who continued using them often didn't know what coat of arms was the right one! 

An administrative reform in 1902 tried to remedy the situation, even decreeing that all town seals in Hungary should be remade by the same person, Ignac Felsenfeld. A special commission studied relevant archival material to decide on the "right" emblems. As a heraldry nerd, Jozef Novak naturally believes that the earliest coats of arms are more "pure" than later ones, while the commission rather preferred the latest designs, since towns during earlier periods often used strikingly similar symbols. 

Since the colors of many coats of arms were unknown (probably because they were only used as symbols on wax seals), the commission decided what colors to use, showing a strong preference for silver charges on blue shields, making Hungarian heraldry look weirdly uniform. 

The book doesn't deal with developments under Communism, when many Slovak towns and localities unofficially kept their coats of arms - or changed them in very unheraldic ways (although it's possible this didn't happen until after the book was published). 

I happen to know that many Slovak towns use the "wrong" coats of arms, compared to the ones Novak has unearthed from the archives. Often, the devil is in the details, as when Pezinok's coat of arms shows Mary on a green shield, when the actual motif should be Anna holding an infant Mary on a blue shield... 

Or perhaps not, since the Catholics insist that the lady on the escutcheon *is* the Virgin Mary, while the Lutherans apparently interpreted her as Anna! This per the current website of Pezinok. 

The color is still wrong, though. 

Perhaps it's time for another commission? 

The dodo and the deer

I've been reliable informed that a character using the moniker “Ashtar Command” must be an expert on all things nerdy. Can confirm!

Today, we are going to discuss some aspects of the coat of arms of Mauritius, as depicted on this T-shirt. The creature on the left (heraldic right or dexter) is, of course, a dodo. But what is the creature on the right (heraldic left or sinister)? According to Wiki, which doesn't cite any sources, it's a sambur deer (sometimes spelled sambar deer). However, some quick research on the web revealed that no sambar deers (Rusa unicolor) live on the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean.

After some additional nerdy browsing, I've come to the conclusion that the animal is a rusa deer (Rusa timorensis). These deer, while not native to Mauritius, have indeed been introduced to the island. They are, somewhat confusingly, sometimes called “sambur deers”, which may explain a thing or two!

It's interesting to note that the coat of arms shows both an extinct native animal (the dodo) and a living non-native ditto (the rusa deer). I suspect there may be some kind of meaning behind this, perhaps to indicate the complex history of this small nation, or its multi-ethnic character? Incidentally, the Latin motto means “Star and Key of the Indian Ocean”, and nothing else. Next week: the hunt for the White Dodo!

The truth will prevail

Amazon actually sells replicas of the Presidential Flag of the Czech Republic, which prompted me to wax eloquent about said flag...until Amazon purged me. Well, good luck selling this stuff without any customer reviews, you monkeys!

If you, for reasons best known to yourself, want to pretend that you are the President of the Czech Republic, this is definitely a must have. It’s the flag of, well, said president.

The colors red, blue and white originally come from the Russian flag, and became associated with other Slav peoples during the 19th century. The Czechoslovak flag, retained by the Czech Republic after Czechoslovakia's dissolution, is red-over-white with a blue triangle. The linden leaves are apparently also a Slav nationalist symbol, since the linden tree was considered sacred by the ancient Slav tribes.

The motto “Truth Prevails” is inspired by a statement by Jan Hus, the 15th century Czech religious reformer burned at the stake as a heretic. It was also used by the Czechoslovak presidents. Hus, in turn, may have been inspired by a statement attributed to Zerubbabel in the aprocryphal Third Book of Esdras, found in many medieval Bibles. The Jewish leader said that women are stronger than both wine and the Persian king, but that truth conquers all.

The shield in the center of the flag is the coat of arms of the Czech Republic. The white lion represents Bohemia, the peculiar checkered eagle stands for Moravia, while the black eagle symbolizes Silesia. These are the three historical regions comprising the republic. The last presidential flag of Czechoslovakia was very similar to the Czech presidential flag, but showed the Slovak double cross instead of the Moravian and Silesian emblems.

OK, enough nerd knowledge for one night. Go to sleep, customers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic#Presidential_standard

The blood of martyrs...well, sort of

Amazon actually sells flags (sic), so I took the opportunity to show off my wide knowledge of Swedish history at the product page of the Stockholm City flag.

This is the flag of Stockholm City (or Stockholm Municipality). The design is somewhat wrong, though. The flag actually used in Stockholm, while very similar to this one, differs in some finer details. Therefore I will only give this product two stars.

Stockholm is the national capital of Sweden. Its flag shows a portrait of St Erik, the unofficial patron saint of Sweden before the Reformation, still seen as a national hero for centuries afterwards. Erik was king of Sweden during the 1150's. He supposedly organized a crusade to Finland to convert the recalcitrant heathens. The pious king was murdered (martyred) at Uppsala and his remains are kept at the local cathedral in a voluminous golden casket.

Of course, Erik probably never visited Stockholm, since the town hardly even existed during his reign. Today, historians strongly suspect that he never visited Uppsala, either! Indeed, king Erik (whose full name Erik Jedvardsson indicates an English pedigree) probably only ruled the Västergötland region in southwestern Sweden, far from Stockholm (at least by 12th century standards). Nor did he organize a crusade. At least, there are no contemporary sources mentioning such a feat. But yes, the person buried in the Uppsala cathedral and claimed to be Erik did die a violent death, so it's always possible that Erik's remains were transferred there from Västergötland at some point. The Erik cult seems to be a late 13th century invention. It's interesting to note that Stockholm had become important by that time, and that the 13th century ruler Birger jarl did organize a crusade to Finland…

From at least 1376, St Erik's portrait has been used in the seal of Stockholm, presumably because he was by that time venerated all over Sweden. Thus, by this strange process a virtually unknown local ruler in Dark Age Sweden has become a symbol of a thriving modern city, a city whose geographical location he probably never visited, nor even cared about…

But then, that's how all history looks like, isn't it?

The flag book of Admiral Dönitz

A review of "The Great Flag Book" or "Flaggenbuch", a very rare product. 

This is a reproduction of a Nazi German flag book published during World War II by the German navy. It does contain all flags of both independent nations and colonies, as they looked like circa 1939-41.

Nazi flags are prominently featured. So are the flags of various Nazi occupation authorities and collaborators, including the banner of the Czech "president" Emil Hácha, the flags of the fascist Ustashe state of Croatia and its leader Ante Pavelic, the symbols of the puppet Slovak Republic, etc.

The entire book oozes Nazism, so make sure not to show it to your suspicious-looking skinhead neighbour: he might decide to beat you up, snatch the book and offer it to the local Aryan Nations chapter! I keep my copy in a special locked compartment, and my dear Giant Schnauzer is ready to "take care" of any White boy who wants to steal it.

Yeah, really.

But sure, since "The Great Flag Book" actually is a flag book (and a great one, too), it also includes the Soviet and American flags, the flags of various British dependencies, and a few places you're probably never even heard of. I mean, how many people have heard of Tuva, a small Communist state at the Soviet-Mongolian border? I have! But then, I was a super-nerd already as a kid! I admit that my knowledge of Chinese or Indochinese pseudo-states is a bit scantier - I couldn't make out some of those.

The Flag Research Center (based in Massachusetts, of all places) published an exclusive, numbered edition of this mother of all (Nazi) flag books in 1992. For no apparent reason, I bought one. I don't know what number my copy has, but the moment my guard dog calms down (he really doesn't like skinheads), I have a closer look.

And yes, I know you guys really hate my humour, so I suspect a couple of non-helpfuls on this one. BTW, the part about the dog was a joke. But sure, I don't keep this one on my coffee table, lest my neighbours get some really funny ideas about my political preferences...

You see, I'm a liberal.