Coat of arms of England in the context of "Coat of arms of Scotland"

The coat of arms of the United Kingdom, also referred to as the royal arms, are the arms of dominion of the British monarch, currently Charles III. They are used by the Government of the United Kingdom and by other Crown institutions, including courts in the United Kingdom and in some parts of the Commonwealth. Differenced versions of the arms are used by members of the British royal family. The monarch's official flag, the royal standard, is the coat of arms in flag form.

There are two versions of the coat of arms. One is used in Scotland, and includes elements derived from the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland, and the other is used elsewhere and includes elements derived from the coat of arms of the Kingdom of England. The shields of both versions of the arms quarter the arms of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, which united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, and the Kingdom of Ireland, which united with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom in 1801. The Irish quarter was unaltered following the division of Ireland into Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State in 1922.

According to some scholars, a national identity of the English as the people or ethnic group dominant in England can be traced to the Anglo-Saxon period. For Lindy Brady and Marc Morris, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People and the construction of Offa's Dyke exemplifies the establishment of such an identity as early as AD 731, becoming a national identity with the unification of the Kingdom of England in the ninth and tenth centuries, and changing status once again in the eleventh century after the Norman Conquest, when Englishry came to be the status of the subject indigenous population. Similarly, Adrian Hastings considers England to be the oldest example of a "mature nation", and links the development of this nationhood to the Christian Church and spread of written popular languages to existing ethnic groups.

In contrast, John Breuilly rejects the notion these examples constituted "national" identity and criticizes the assumption that continued usage of a term such as 'English' means continuity in its meaning. Patrick J. Geary agrees, arguing names were adapted to different circumstances by different powers and could convince people of continuity, even if radical discontinuity was the lived reality. Geary also rejects the conflation of early medieval and contemporary group identities as a myth, arguing it is a mistake to conclude continuity based on the recurrence of names and that historians fail to recognize the differences between earlier ways of perceiving group identities and more contemporary attitudes, stating they are "trapped in the very historical process we are attempting to study". Krishan Kumar also points out that Bede's 'English' did not refer to a unified people, but rather "still diverse groups of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others with distinct ethnicities".