Manc Coat Of Arms

[mammyjam]

Trouble is we can't, owned by council copyright etc etc. But if Manchester team does well we get special dispensation to use it, that is why galling to see that red shite wear it even though they contribute fuck all to Manchester. They should not be allowed to wear it at all IMO but wear Trafford coat of Arms. :-)

Manchester

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ngw.nl/int/gbr/m/manchest.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ngw.nl/int/gbr/m/manchest.htm</a>

Trafford

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ngw.nl/int/gbr/t/trafford.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ngw.nl/int/gbr/t/trafford.htm</a>

We could if we wanted to,the Council would have to challenge us by forming an Heraldic Council with special officers positions created, but without saying to much at least one & possibly 2 precidents of the COA being used exists.

the club would however not own the copywrite and would therefore be unable to regulate official merchendice... anybody could make the shirts and be untouchable by law

 

[Gary James]

Someone asked when City last wore the Manchester Coat Of Arms. Apart from pre/post-match events the last time the City players wore the Coat of Arms in a first team fixture was the 1986 Full Members Cup Final.

City have worn the badge in every cup final played in except: 1904 FAC (no badge) & 1970 ECWC (no badge worn, seems to have been a problem with timescales - semifinal was only 2 weeks before final).

City also wore the Manchester COA in some League games during 1937-8 (first time City wore a badge for League games) and for a while in the mid-late 70s.

City used to use it as their official emblem on stationery etc. from 1894 through to fairly modern times (headed letters from the 1990s still used it).

For those mentioning United's use of the badge.... Utd first used it when they became MUFC in 1902. They also used it for official stationery and so on. When they moved from the city of Manchester to Old Trafford they had it painted on a gable on their Main Stand roof.

Utd wore the badge in their cup finals of 1948 (their first use on a shirt), 1957, 1963 and 1968 Euro (last time they wore it in a first team game). As far as I can tell they never wore it in the League. Also they wore the Manchester Eagle on their shirts in 1958 (the same eagle we wear, not a phoenix as many people incorrectly believe).

Manchester City Council give permission to people to use it and although most Blues think Utd have not been given permission, they did receive permission for 1948 and presumably for the finals that followed (all it takes is for a Utd supporting council leader to say 'yes' and there have been a few of these over the years). In 1957 the council decided sporting sides should not use the COA and they introduced the eagle emblem that Utd then wore in 1958. The councils approach changed by the early 60s.

Regardless of Utd's use, I think City should re-adopt the emblem for blazers/club wear. Merchandise issues do affect shirt related decisions. I have the full story of City (and Utd's) emblems in the latest issue of "Manchester A Football History".

 

[the kippax wall]

Well, that's touching but Trafford is Trafford and Manchester is Manchester. United have no right to wear our coat of arms.

If you wanted to be as equally pedantic, you could argue that the Manchester coat of arms shouldn't have a ship on it, because the ship canal doesn't actually enter the city of Manchester, but every fooker wants the ship on their badge!

It's all bollix really, you can see the town hall clock from sir matt busby way, that's nearer to Manchester than most of us live. Especially me here in Dublin.

I can see the moon from my back garden. Doesn't mean I'm from there, United's no more Manc than Stockport, Wigan or Oldham.

 

[Gary James]

Well, that's touching but Trafford is Trafford and Manchester is Manchester. United have no right to wear our coat of arms.

If you wanted to be as equally pedantic, you could argue that the Manchester coat of arms shouldn't have a ship on it, because the ship canal doesn't actually enter the city of Manchester

It's a misconception that the ship represents the Manchester Ship Canal. It actually predates it and is there to signify Manchester's trading links based on earlier canals such as the Bridgewater Canal.

 

[Deleted member 14625]

danburge82 wrote:
Rammyblues wrote:

Yep


I live in Trafford but I am not a Traffordian, it doesn't exist, I'm a Mancunian. United wearing that is no problem for me. This whole connurbation is all Manchester to me.

Not out to upset any fellow blue, but Trafford has its own coat of arms, I wish Rammy had one if they did I would be proud to wear it. Seems odd that people want to be somewhere else than where their roots are. If Traffordians believe they are Mancunian I don't have a problem with that, I have never ever considered Rammy as part of Greater Manchester it was forced upon us, I still look back when Rammy was Rammy Urban District Council and was part of Lancashire. If I have offended anyone from Trafford please accept my apologies.

It doesn't upset me, i hear it all the time. I just find it strange that someone from Bury who supports a Manchester club can ridicule United for wearing the Manchester Coat of Arms.

 

[Deleted member 14625]

If you wanted to be as equally pedantic, you could argue that the Manchester coat of arms shouldn't have a ship on it, because the ship canal doesn't actually enter the city of Manchester, but every fooker wants the ship on their badge!

It's all bollix really, you can see the town hall clock from sir matt busby way, that's nearer to Manchester than most of us live. Especially me here in Dublin.

I can see the moon from my back garden. Doesn't mean I'm from there, United's no more Manc than Stockport, Wigan or Oldham.

Of course it is! Manchester the city is a much greater area than merely Manchester the borough! In any other place in the world this whole connurbation (that doesn't include Wigan if you look properly on maps) would be classed as one city. It's only because Manchester was once an insignificant district of Lancashire compared to other established towns that surrounded it that this city isn't wholly considered as one. People from Belgium who weaved wool and cotton moved here and Manchester was then thrust upon the world as a great city. Yet within the city that is Manchester there are still divisions for who considers themselves Manchester and who doesn't, when really we ARE one.

 

[Vic]

If you wanted to be as equally pedantic, you could argue that the Manchester coat of arms shouldn't have a ship on it, because the ship canal doesn't actually enter the city of Manchester, but every fooker wants the ship on their badge!

Oh no, someone on the internet is wrong!

The boundary runs along the canal to Woden Street bridge (the upper limit) from where No. 1 Dock used to be (and that dock itself was within the city boundary)

 

[bluemanc]

Either of them would look good on a Blazer.

 

[mammyjam]

gary could i just ask what the story is behing the manchester eagle? im a history student and love stuff like this. im getting the bee tattooed on tuesday :D

 

[Norb]

gary could i just ask what the story is behing the manchester eagle? im a history student and love stuff like this. im getting the bee tattooed on tuesday :D

In 1957 the City of Manchester was granted a new badge as you can see above.

According to a 1958 newspaper account, the eagle is said to be symbolic of Manchester’s connection with ancient Rome, the symbol which looks like a letter ‘M’ in the centre is the fesse dancette recording the association with the former lords of the manor, and the ring around it is symbolic of Ringway. The mural crown is a symbol of a municipal corporation, and is silver or white to represent cotton and clean air, the provision of which was pioneered by Manchester.
In a more official publication (and slightly at odds with the above description), the eagle is said to represent the city’s importance in air transport, while the mural crown symbolises an expanding community. The new eagle badge, but not the coat of arms, “may correctly be used by any person or organization connected with the city, provided official permission is obtained from the Town Clerk”.