Heraldry

[Tatiana Maria]

I think I will be able to post many of the legal instruments, but it might take me some time. Are you interested in seeing the legal instruments regulating the personal arms of the monarchs, too?

Recalling from memory, I think the national coat of arms is identical to the monarch's personal arms in Denmark, but not in Norway or Belgium, but I could be wrong.

I can't see how a difference between the personal arms of a king or queen and the arms of their kingdom could violate traditional heraldic principles. Heraldry developed in the medieval era when it was unexceptional for a sovereign or prominent lord to reign over a collection of states, each of which would have their own heraldic identity. The medieval kings of England were also feudal monarchs of various French states, for instances.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

National Arms vs Monarch's Personal Arms

If I understand it correctly, in the United Kingdom (and Canada), the Netherlands, and Sweden, the national coat of arms is also the monarch's personal coat of arms.


However, in Belgium, Denmark, and Spain (I don't know about Norway), it appears to me that the national coat of arms and the King's (or the Queen's) personal arms have different designs, albeit with overlapping elements. Is that correct and, if so, does that violate the traditional heraldic principles for monarchies?

Incidentally, I would appreciate if posters could explain what legal instruments regulate national arms in each of the aforementioned jurisdictions.


Thank you in advance.

In the Netherlands the King uses the Royal Arms as King but it is never his personal Arms. Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix returned to their personal Arms after abdication. The King uses the national arms alike Macron uses the Arms of France or Biden uses the Arms of the United States during office.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

In the Netherlands the King uses the Royal Arms as King but it is never his personal Arms. Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix returned to their personal Arms after abdication. The King uses the national arms alike Macron uses the Arms of France or Biden uses the Arms of the United States during office.

Insteresting. So are you saying the King's personal arms still are the ones he was given when he was born, but, while he is King, he merely uses the national arms instead?


Is that the same as or different from the situation in Sweden, see my comments below? I think it might be different because Law 1982:268 in Sweden specifically mentions statschefens personliga vapen , i.e. personal arms of the Head of State.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Recalling from memory, I think the national coat of arms is identical to the monarch's personal arms in Denmark, but not in Norway or Belgium, but I could be wrong.

It is a little bit confusing to me. Denmark apparently has a Greater Coat of Arms, which is the royal coat of arms (kongevåben ?) and a Lesser Coat of Arms, which is the state coat of arms (rigsvåben). The former is used only by the Queen, members of the Royal Family (with modifications), and, I suppose, departments of the Royal Household.

Sweden also has a Greater Coat of Arms and a lesser variant, and both are legally considered state (or national) arms (riksvapen). The Greater Coat of Arms is also the personal arms of the King as Head of State and the King may also authorize its use by "members of the Royal House" (det kungliga huset, whatever that means in Sweden) with such modifications as the King may determine. Although only the Lesser Coat of Arms is normally used by other state bodies, from what I understand, unlike in Denmark, the Greater Coat of Arms may also be used by "the Riksdag, the government, the ministries, the foreign service and the Armed Forces" in addition to the Head of State.

In Belgium, I am pretty sure that the King's arms, at least since 2019, are different from the national arms, both in the greater and lesser variants. The King's personal arms for example include the Saxonian inescutcheon, which is not present in the national coat of arms.

Likewise, in Spain, there are many differences between the national arms and King Felipe's personal arms. The King's arms include the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, a different color for the Lion Rampant in the second quarter, a different design of the royal crown, and different designs also for the castle and the chains in the first and fourth quarters. Also, the King's arms have no supporters while the national coat of arms (escudo de España) is supported by two crowned columns wrapped with ribbons featuring the words "Plus" and "Ultra" ("Plus Ultra" being the motto of Spain). King Juan Carlos' coat of arms, which can be still legally used by the King Emeritus, uses alternatively the Burgundy cross as supporter and has a distinctive red Lion Rampant (as opposed to the purple Lion Rampant in King Felipe's shield) plus the yoke and arrows used in the arms of the Catholic Kings, which are now also gone from King Felipe's arms.

I guess one could argue that the different colorings and designs of some common elements are simply due to different heraldic interpretations of the description of the achievements, but the presence of different elements (like the Golden Fleece on the King's arms, and the supporters and national motto on the state arms) suggests to me that those are indeed two different coat of arms, but I would appreciate if the heraldic experts here could comment.


Finally, my understanding is that, in the United Kingdom in particular, in line with the (correct) heraldic tradition for a monarchy, there is no such thing as national or state arms. There is only the Arms of HM The Queen in Right of The Crown and the Queen incidentally uses different arms in Scotland (as HM The Queen in Right of Scotland) and in Canada (as HM The Queen in Right of Canada; Canada also lacking in this case national/state arms). Because the government is technically the Queen's government (as the Queen holds the Executive power), the Armed Forces are the Queen's Armed Forces, and the Courts administer justice in the Queen's name, they also use the Queen's arms or, in fact, in the case of the government, normally a simplified version thereof (without crests, helms or compartments for example), but I don't think they are technically different arms. Again, I would like to hear the experts' opinion.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The tradition in European heraldry is to have dynastic charges in the form of an inescutcheon superimposed to the arms of dominion. That is what you see e.g. in the coat of arms of the King of Spain, the King of Sweden, the Queen of Denmark and, since 2019, the King of the Belgians. King Albert I had removed the charges representing the House of Saxony (Wettin) from his royal coat of arms after World War I, when the Belgian Coburgs took the dynastic name House of Belgium, but King Philippe recently restored the inescutcheon, actually causing the King's coat of arms to be different from the national (or state) coat of arms in violation of traditional heraldic rules.

I am still curious about where you read that traditional heraldic rules demand that a King's coat of arms be used as the national coat of arms. Nation-states in the modern sense did not truly exist, and a King would be expected to be sovereign over a myriad of states, in the era of European history in which the oldest heraldic traditions developed, so a rule of that kind would seem to be in contradiction to the historical circumstances.

Regarding the earlier discussion, if you or anyone else would still like me to post links to legislative instruments, please let me know.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is unclear to me what implication that change has on the naming of the House of Belgium, if any.

The royal house or dynasty of Belgium has never assumed an official name for itself, even if it is popularly known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and the House of Belgium.