What are the leaves/Flowers in the city badge?

[Guest]

People on this forum can criticise my work all they want, I'll just carry on not giving a fvck.

Your work is great lad. A+, gold star and all that.

[Zingari]

People on this forum can criticise my work all they want, I'll just carry on not giving a fvck.

no one said anything about fluffing .

[Guest]

no one said anything about fluffing .

Isn't "fluffing" making a mistake?

[Zingari]

Isn't "fluffing" making a mistake?

As a career choice , I'd say it's a big mistake

[Daggers]

As a career choice , I'd say it's a big mistake

True, there's been hard times but I find there aren't many other positions I am comfortable in.

[Jollie]

Nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses as I understand it. However, as a matter of interest Richard III rode through Leicester the day before the battle of Bosworth as the city of Leicester was supportive of him during his short reign. Allegiences were complicated in the Wars of the Roses and didn't run on geographical lines. There was no Earl of Leicester during this time as the last holder of the title was Henry Bollingbroke, otherwise known as Henry IV, the next was Robert Dudley of wife pushed down the stairs, wanted to marry Elizabeth I fame.

[stourbridgefox]

Does nobody else think it is too coincidental that Leicester has a link to Richard III and the House of York and the symbol chosen for Leicester dating back to just after the Norman Conquest is a white rose typed thing? No? Just me then.

While there is no evidence to say it is to show allegiance to the House of York, there isn't any evidence to say any other reason why it was picked either. Whatever Robert de Beaumont had on his mind when he chose it is not recorded, any more than what the LCFC badge designer had on his mind back in 1991 is recorded. We are left to speculate.

However, I don't make things up and I am pretty certain I have heard or read that the reason for the white rose thing is to show allegiance to the House of York. I have no idea where though and I haven't got the patience to look that deeply into it now.

On day, I will be doing something else and I will come across this evidence.

And then...I'll be back!

[Finnegan]

And the chap that's teaching it to a class of children? That's just concerning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep your concern to yourself you self-important, sanctimonious, arrogant arsewipe.

There are far more important people than you that my teaching doesn't concern. Go back to watching the History Channel and being a know it all online.

Regardless of what the truth of the rose actually is, I can categorically state that nothing I have contributed has been designed to make other people on here look small, regardless of whether I have agreed with them.

For the record you haven't made anyone else look small, just shown yourself up for what you really are.

Translation: ****! He's right! I need to change my lesson plan and thank God the last Ofsted inspector doesn't give a toss about the history of minor 11th century nobility!

[Finnegan]

Does nobody else think it is too coincidental that Leicester has a link to Richard III and the House of York and the symbol chosen for Leicester dating back to just after the Norman Conquest is a white rose typed thing? No? Just me then.

While there is no evidence to say it is to show allegiance to the House of York, there isn't any evidence to say any other reason why it was picked either. Whatever Robert de Beaumont had on his mind when he chose it is not recorded, any more than what the LCFC badge designer had on his mind back in 1991 is recorded. We are left to speculate.

However, I don't make things up and I am pretty certain I have heard or read that the reason for the white rose thing is to show allegiance to the House of York. I have no idea where though and I haven't got the patience to look that deeply into it now.

On day, I will be doing something else and I will come across this evidence.

And then...I'll be back!

You've no idea where?! YOU'VE NO IDEA WHERE AND YOU TEACH IT TO CHILDREN!?

ARGGGGGGGGGHAGAHUGSDHIGHSIUGHAIUHGIAYHGA!!! The **** man?

Daggers, make it stop. Please, PLEASE make it stop.

[The Doctor]

Does nobody else think it is too coincidental that Leicester has a link to Richard III and the House of York and the symbol chosen for Leicester dating back to just after the Norman Conquest is a white rose typed thing? No? Just me then.

While there is no evidence to say it is to show allegiance to the House of York, there isn't any evidence to say any other reason why it was picked either. Whatever Robert de Beaumont had on his mind when he chose it is not recorded, any more than what the LCFC badge designer had on his mind back in 1991 is recorded. We are left to speculate.

However, I don't make things up and I am pretty certain I have heard or read that the reason for the white rose thing is to show allegiance to the House of York. I have no idea where though and I haven't got the patience to look that deeply into it now.

On day, I will be doing something else and I will come across this evidence.

And then...I'll be back!

So hold on.

You teach this to children, and yet you're neither teaching the correct thing, or bothered about actually fact-checking what you're teaching?

**** man, why did I wander back into this section?

[flowwolf]

Please allow me to introduce a bit of gravitas into this thread. Recent research into Medieval Leicester suggests that the reason for using the cinquefoil in the the towns badge was simply because tinfoil had not yet been invented and neither had Bakeofoil which was not invented until 1973 by Mr Kipling.

I hope this now puts to bed a thorny question that no one up to now has been able to answer without me sounding a know all.

[stourbridgefox]

Please allow me to introduce a bit of gravitas into this thread. Recent research into Medieval Leicester suggests that the reason for using the cinquefoil in the the towns badge was simply because tinfoil had not yet been invented and neither had Bakeofoil which was not invented until 1973 by Mr Kipling.

I hope this now puts to bed a thorny question that no one up to now has been able to answer without me sounding a know all.

Yeah I give up too.

Some people have made interesting points which are worthy of consideration. Others seem to think studying history is a kind of extended pub quiz where knowledge is packaged in a form which can either receive a point or a half point depending on the opinion of the people sitting at the table next to you. Although this works well in the clique environment which is Foxestalk.

So the OP has received some factual information on his original question. (although whether the flower behind the foxes head is actually a rose or a cinquefoil remains to be answered.) The answer to why the flower is included has proven to be a much 'thornier' issue. Who would've thought it would be so controversial? But I suppose it is Foxestalk !!

To Finnegan et al, do you really think anything you say on an internet forum is likely to make me change the way I do my job? I'm doing fine thank you. But what a self-important little world you live in.

Peace.

[Finnegan]

Taking a step back from the internet mud-slinging for a moment and being serious; it's not my intention to insult you as a human being and I'm sure you worked hard to get where you are today in terms of your profession, it's a highly under-valued one and I don't think people take teaching seriously enough. Education is something I've a keen interest in, partly because I feel let down by the system I went through; not necessarily the individuals who taught me but the wider model of learning that we've been stuck in since mass state education first emerged.

Several things bother me about your contributions to this thread, all of which seem to make you increasingly touchy, defensive and (if you'll pardon my saying so) a little immature. Sticking your fingers in your ears and simply calling people things like 'self-important' in the hope others will chuckle, nod and agree is a classic argument stratagem and an often successful method of distraction when one doesn't have a solid point. I sympathise, I've often used it before, it's a good tactic and it works - it doesn't matter how strong your own debate is, if you can make your opponent look flawed then it automatically discredits theirs and you 'win' (you could argue I've even been doing it here, to an extent.)

The problem is, the argument I've put forward is based on a varied mixture of common knowledge, my own interests and a number of different sources (admitedly, ones I had to pluck from a search engine in a few moments, I could do infinitely better with a little more time because I AM right.) Yours is pieced together of "things I think I heard once." You didn't actually know, coming in to this, the answer for certain but you stuck your colours to the Yorkist mast with such verve and gusto that you risked making yourself look not only a fool but incompetent in your professional life were you wrong, it's natural you were going to become entrenched.

Teachers are only human. I don't know if you're a primary school teacher, an English (or such) teacher with a passing interest in history, a dedicated history teacher or what, you're only ever going to know what you've studied, the same as any other person. Most teachers, especially the younger generation, aren't committed experts in their field, many have only just finished a three year degree themselves, begun their learning in the field and rely on a structured curriculum to pass on what they know. Most would still consider themselves students in their subject, I'm sure, that's certainly true of the four or five I know in my personal life.

I've two good friends in particular that spring to mind when I think of you in this thread, both my age. One a science teacher, a bright one with a keen and active interest in the sciences, who studied them combined and carries a broad understanding, the other has just got in to patenting and holds a PhD in biochemistry. I don't doubt the former likely has a better knowledge of space and time or particle physics but I know who I'd depend on when it came to dissecting flies.

The point is, just because you teach something for a living it would be arrogant to assume you know more than others around you in life. I'm not a scholarly professor of history, not in the slightest, but I apparently have a greater interest in Leicester's history than you do and at some point I've wondered what our coat of arms is and I've read up. I've also, apparently, a keener (dorkier, no doubt) interest in heraldry than you and that's fine. This isn't some pub quiz, I'm not after points and I'm not - contrary to popular belief - simply stroking my own ego (although after my contributions to this thread I'm sure most of Foxes Talk will disagree - they'd be wrong to think I care.) It's just something I'm fairly passionate about and I don't want to see misinformation spread because I think, really, people should take more of an active interest in where they're from and it's history.

So when you stepped up and confessed to actually imparting an incorrect knowledge on to future generations I admit I got a little excitable and probably a little personal to an extent that was unnecessary. But that doesn't deviate from the fact I'm not only correct but well backed up by any number of sources. You claim "we'll never know" what the flower behind Filbert is, I say that's absolutely nonsense. It's clearly a cinquefoil, it's clearly the symbol of the Beaumont family, it's there for all to see. You know it, you've realised it, just accept it and move on. Then do yourself a bit of reading on the early Earls of Leicester and next time you give a lesson just assimilate the latest wisdom you've earned and pass it on. That's all.

Oh - and potentilla (the cinquefoil symbol's proper name in botany) don't have thorns, so that's a poor joke.

And further "oh", the cinquefoil was a fairly popular sign of power and honour in Normandy and Brittany, it appeared in heraldry and architecture both, it's not unusual that the Beaumonts would have held this sign. In heraldic terms it is distinctly separate from a rose and I highly doubt it would have been chosen out of respect for another house who used a different sign, to use an example from earlier in the thread it would be like muddling up rampant and passant animals which also have distinctly different meanings. The houses of York and Leicester could have been the best of friends, the rest of everything you said in this thread could be completely true, that still isn't "why" a cinquefoil.

Christ, I do go on.

[Leicester_Numan]

Taking a step back from the internet mud-slinging for a moment and being serious; it's not my intention to insult you as a human being and I'm sure you worked hard to get where you are today in terms of your profession, it's a highly under-valued one and I don't think people take teaching seriously enough. Education is something I've a keen interest in, partly because I feel let down by the system I went through; not necessarily the individuals who taught me but the wider model of learning that we've been stuck in since mass state education first emerged.

Several things bother me about your contributions to this thread, all of which seem to make you increasingly touchy, defensive and (if you'll pardon my saying so) a little immature. Sticking your fingers in your ears and simply calling people things like 'self-important' in the hope others will chuckle, nod and agree is a classic argument stratagem and an often successful method of distraction when one doesn't have a solid point. I sympathise, I've often used it before, it's a good tactic and it works - it doesn't matter how strong your own debate is, if you can make your opponent look flawed then it automatically discredits theirs and you 'win' (you could argue I've even been doing it here, to an extent.)

The problem is, the argument I've put forward is based on a varied mixture of common knowledge, my own interests and a number of different sources (admitedly, ones I had to pluck from a search engine in a few moments, I could do infinitely better with a little more time because I AM right.) Yours is pieced together of "things I think I heard once." You didn't actually know, coming in to this, the answer for certain but you stuck your colours to the Yorkist mast with such verve and gusto that you risked making yourself look not only a fool but incompetent in your professional life were you wrong, it's natural you were going to become entrenched.

Teachers are only human. I don't know if you're a primary school teacher, an English (or such) teacher with a passing interest in history, a dedicated history teacher or what, you're only ever going to know what you've studied, the same as any other person. Most teachers, especially the younger generation, aren't committed experts in their field, many have only just finished a three year degree themselves, begun their learning in the field and rely on a structured curriculum to pass on what they know. Most would still consider themselves students in their subject, I'm sure, that's certainly true of the four or five I know in my personal life.

I've two good friends in particular that spring to mind when I think of you in this thread, both my age. One a science teacher, a bright one with a keen and active interest in the sciences, who studied them combined and carries a broad understanding, the other has just got in to patenting and holds a PhD in biochemistry. I don't doubt the former likely has a better knowledge of space and time or particle physics but I know who I'd depend on when it came to dissecting flies.

The point is, just because you teach something for a living it would be arrogant to assume you know more than others around you in life. I'm not a scholarly professor of history, not in the slightest, but I apparently have a greater interest in Leicester's history than you do and at some point I've wondered what our coat of arms is and I've read up. I've also, apparently, a keener (dorkier, no doubt) interest in heraldry than you and that's fine. This isn't some pub quiz, I'm not after points and I'm not - contrary to popular belief - simply stroking my own ego (although after my contributions to this thread I'm sure most of Foxes Talk will disagree - they'd be wrong to think I care.) It's just something I'm fairly passionate about and I don't want to see misinformation spread because I think, really, people should take more of an active interest in where they're from and it's history.

So when you stepped up and confessed to actually imparting an incorrect knowledge on to future generations I admit I got a little excitable and probably a little personal to an extent that was unnecessary. But that doesn't deviate from the fact I'm not only correct but well backed up by any number of sources. You claim "we'll never know" what the flower behind Filbert is, I say that's absolutely nonsense. It's clearly a cinquefoil, it's clearly the symbol of the Beaumont family, it's there for all to see. You know it, you've realised it, just accept it and move on. Then do yourself a bit of reading on the early Earls of Leicester and next time you give a lesson just assimilate the latest wisdom you've earned and pass it on. That's all.

Oh - and potentilla (the cinquefoil symbol's proper name in botany) don't have thorns, so that's a poor joke.

And further "oh", the cinquefoil was a fairly popular sign of power and honour in Normandy and Brittany, it appeared in heraldry and architecture both, it's not unusual that the Beaumonts would have held this sign. In heraldic terms it is distinctly separate from a rose and I highly doubt it would have been chosen out of respect for another house who used a different sign, to use an example from earlier in the thread it would be like muddling up rampant and passant animals which also have distinctly different meanings. The houses of York and Leicester could have been the best of friends, the rest of everything you said in this thread could be completely true, that still isn't "why" a cinquefoil.

Christ, I do go on.

Maybe, but you're also right

[Leicester_Numan]

The white rose of Yorkshire is on the Leeds United badge. Why not take a look to see the difference between their rose and our cinquefoil

[Zingari]

I’m not sure , but I think the white rose on the Leicester crest is something to do with Richard the Third and the Wars of the Roses .

Richard was born in Leicester on King Richard’s Road ( some coincidence that)

I don’t know what the Legless Wyvern means though, I think they just stuck it on top as an afterthought.

Hope this helps

[Finnegan]

It was funny the first twelve times, Zingo, try a little harder next time.

[Buce]

I was total brassic (sp) around that time...

Borassic, as in 'borassic lint' (Cockney rhyming slang for 'skint')

[davieG]

Borassic, as in 'borassic lint' (Cockney rhyming slang for 'skint')

Thanks, Being born in London, although not a Cockney I should have remembered that but age does funny things to your memory.

[Buce]

Thanks, Being born in London, although not a Cockney I should have remembered that but age does funny things to your memory.

No worries.

Do they actually still use rhyming slang in London? I thought it only lived on in repeats of 'Minder'.

[Leicester_Numan]

No one knows why the Leicester wyvern has no legs but the description wyvern sans legs doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't got any, it could just mean they weren't depicted or they're hidden underneath the wyvern. I think it would be more interesting to find out why it's depicted as being wounded. I bet no one knows that either

[davieG]

No worries.

Do they actually still use rhyming slang in London? I thought it only lived on in repeats of 'Minder'.

I don't know I left when I was 5

[Guest]

Why be so shocked that a teacher in an arts subject doesn't know everything or get all the facts right? If you think teaching is so simple and so easy then you are a little simple yourself.

Sure I think that stourbridge could have said "oops, I've been teaching something else, I'll have to look into it" but I don't think many of you have much idea about the psychology needed to be a good teacher - and that doesn't mean a teacher that is always right.

I can assure you that even a poor teacher is far more accurate than most professional footballers who some of you hero worship.

1 inaccurate pass this match by stourbridge and the crowd want his head.

[Finnegan]

I know my last post was excessively long and I don't expect many will want to read it but I did essentially just say most of that.

I've a lot of respect for teachers and no personal issue with SBF. Just, in this instance, he is wrong and a bit of acceptance would go a long way.

[Webbo]

I had a teacher at school who thought Princess Margaret was the Queens daughter.