Meghan Markle: Coat of Arms Discussion

[Curbside]

I noticed that too, but didn't know enough about it to ask intelligent questions.

 

[PetticoatLane]

The unicorn on the Queen's coat of arms, which are the coat of arms of the UK and grace every British passport for example, has the coronet around its neck. If it's good enough for HM's arms then it's good enough for Meghan's (and Kate's and Camilla's).

 

[kyle]

Thank you very much Alvinking. Useful info.

Harry doesn't have the Order of the Garter or Thistle etc yet, (Order of Chivalry) and so that's presumably why Meghan's C of A is impaled in the way shown above.

The Duchess of Gloucester may have received hers before marriage, but (as Osipi put it in an earlier post,) the Palace was alive to the Markle family circling around like vultures and so left the issue of the C of A for Meghan until AFTER her marriage.

Ok, I totally understand now. Makes perfect sence to why the Duchess of G. is the way it is. Harry and Meghan are on same level of Chivalry. I thought it was because of the family crest vs. individual thing.

I also think that Mr. Middleton applied for and paid for his family coat of arms. The Markles would not do that. (no offense intended toward them)

 

[jacqui24]

I also think that Mr. Middleton applied for and paid for his family coat of arms. The Markles would not do that. (no offense intended toward them)

Had nothing to do with money. If it comes down to it, Meghan would be able to pay for it.

 

[kyle]

Had nothing to do with money. If it comes down to it, Meghan would be able to pay for it.

Oh, my goodness, I agree. I am not implying that Meghan did not apply and pay for the coat of arms for herself.

 

[jacqui24]

Oh, my goodness, I agree. I am not implying that Meghan did not apply and pay for the coat of arms for herself.

I'm not saying you did. Simply that money isn't an issue here either way.

 

[kyle]

I'm not saying you did. Simply that money isn't an issue here either way.

Money is no issue. This is about coat of arms. I understand your point. I think. Would you like to continue in DM?

 

[wyevale]

The symbolism is excellent, but [imo] it just isn't visually appealing.

Why are there no martlets, the heraldic bird of the county of Sussex?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Still curious though. Since the Grant of Arms was awarded to the Duchess of Gloucester herself, she can use it as an inescutcheon on top of her husband's coat of arms. But Meghan's was not granted to her father or any family members but her yet it is impaled.

A reporter is trying to get the answer to that.

Harry doesn't have the Order of the Garter or Thistle etc yet, (Order of Chivalry) and so that's presumably why Meghan's C of A is impaled in the way shown above.

or by grant to herself. When unmarried, she displays her arms on a lozenge (a diamond shape) or on an oval or oval-like shape. Traditionally, a woman does not display her arms on a shield, as the shield originated with knights and warfare, and is thus viewed as fitting for a man, but not a woman.

I'm going to take a feminist stance that this should be obsolete because women now do take up arms in warfare. Perhaps that is why we see a difference and Meghan's shield is joined side by side, equally with Harry's.

It is normal under the British laws of arms for a married woman's arms to be impaled (displayed side by side on a shield) with her husband's arms in the way seen in the image of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's marital coat of arms.

However, arms normally are not impaled when the woman is an heraldic heiress whose family has no surviving male heirs. It is being asked why the marital arms make it appear that the Duchess of Sussex is not an heraldic heiress, since, while she has a surviving father and brother, they are not heirs to her coat of arms.

The Law of Arms - College of Arms

Heraldic Heiress

Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs. A woman with no surviving brothers, or whose deceased brothers have no surviving issue, is an heraldic heiress. She is not necessarily a monetary heiress. Providing that she marries a man who bears arms, the children of their marriage may include the arms of her father as a quartering in their own shields. This is how elaborate shields of many quarterings come about.

Arms of Women

A woman may bear arms by inheritance from her father or by grant to herself. She may not use a crest, which is considered a male attribute.

When unmarried, she displays her arms on a lozenge (a diamond shape) or an oval. A shield has traditionally been seen as a war-like device appropriate to a man. When married, a woman may unite her arms with those of her husband in what are called marital arms; their arms are impaled, meaning placed side by side in the same shield, with those of the man on the dexter and those of his wife on the sinister. If one spouse belongs to the higher ranks of an order of chivalry, and thereby entitled to surround his or her arms with a circlet of the order, it is usual to depict them on two separate shields tilted towards one another, termed accollé. A married woman may also bear either her own arms or her husband's arms alone on a shield with a small differencing mark to distinguish her from her father or husband.

If the woman is an heraldic heiress, her arms are shown on an inescutcheon of pretence (a small shield) in the centre of her husband's arms.

When widowed, a woman continues to use her marital arms, but placed on a lozenge or oval.

 

[Rudolph]

So the College of Arms fudged it?

 

[Rudolph]

Uhm. Hello! I'm really curious about Meghan's coat of arms that it's impaled with Harry's coat of arms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a wife's coat of arms is impaled if the arms is not hers personally rather it is her paternal coat of arms. If it is her personal coat of arms, it is shown as an inescutcheon. However, her father was not granted a coat of arms. Perhaps, the grant for her father's coat of arms is still pending? Or perhaps, she is not yet a British citizen?

You were right

 

[wyevale]

the College of Arms fudged it

Yes.. since this is ROYAL Heraldry 'they write the rules'..

 

[jacqui24]

The symbolism is excellent, but [imo] it just isn't visually appealing.

Why are there no martlets, the heraldic bird of the county of Sussex?

Do they typically add elements of the county?

 

[Pranter]

Still wondering at the crown on the head vs crown around the neck...so far ISTM that all the men have the crown on the head ..all the ladies have crown around the neck...is it done that way to signify gender?


LaRae

 

[Ish]

Still wondering at the crown on the head vs crown around the neck...so far ISTM that all the men have the crown on the head ..all the ladies have crown around the neck...is it done that way to signify gender?


LaRae

I think you might be reading too much into this. If you look at the arms of men in the BRF, they have supporters with the Crown around their neck as well. Likewise, if you look at Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne, etc, they all have the lion with the Crown on its head.

 

[Jacknch]

Isn't the crown issue simple that the lion represents the Crown/royal family/monarchy being a "royal lion" and that the opposing supporter represents the non-royal symbol?

 

[cepe]

The Coat of Arms of the UK the supporter on the right is a unicorn with a crown around its neck. Nothing to do with gender.

It is taken from the original CoA of Scotland - again nothing to do with gender,

I agree with Ish - too much is being read into this.

I havent read everything in this thread so apologies if this is a repeat, but here is the page from the College of Arms which explains all the Coat of Arms for Cambridges. It helps explain whats going on with duchess of Sussex


Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - College of Arms

 

[Humbugged]

The Coat of Arms of the UK the supporter on the right is a unicorn with a crown around its neck. Nothing to do with gender.

It is taken from the original CoA of Scotland - again nothing to do with gender,

I agree with Ish - too much is being read into this.

I havent read everything in this thread so apologies if this is a repeat, but here is the page from the College of Arms which explains all the Coat of Arms for Cambridges. It helps explain whats going on with duchess of Sussex


Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - College of Arms

And when north of the border the position of the lion and the unicorn switch along with the crown in the middle changing to the Crown of Scotland (the Duke of Hamilton's main job is to cart the thing about at the opening of Holyrood ) as well as the Unicorn wearing the crown on it s head as well as the coronet round its neck

 

[Madame Verseau]

I love Meghan's coat of arms and her cypher. It's so representative of her. I am surprised the supporter is not the bald eagle, the national bird of the US or a rose for America's national flower. . And no reference to the Markles, like Kate referenced her family. Sam ranted about this before the reveal and I'm surprised she and the rest of the Markles are silent now. Overall it's lovely.

 

[Curbside]

I love Meghan's coat of arms and her cypher. It's so representative of her. I am surprised the supporter is not the bald eagle, the national bird of the US or a rose for America's national flower. . And no reference to the Markles, like Kate referenced her family. Sam ranted about this before the reveal and I'm surprised she and the rest of the Markles are silent now. Overall it's lovely.

I think an eagle would be too patriotic, given that we did declare war against the crown. ? I was hoping for a grizzly, but I think it might look kind of awkward in place of the songbird.

 

[Countessmeout]

What would she include to honor the Markles??? Kate's coat of arms includes her family because it isn't her coat of arms. It is the Middleton coat of arms, it was issued to her father and family. Her personal one, is the one of a daughter of the family. Meghan's is not a family coat of arms, it is her personal one. And as such it reflects her as a person.

I don't think the bald eagle or a bear were necessary. The bald eagle would be far too patriotic for a new British princess. And she has enough nods to California without including the bear.


I love the design. The blue and sun rays, the poppies all clear nods to California and her parents in a way. As an actress and now as a royal, communication is a key part of her world. The quils and the songbird are great. I love they included the flowers from Kensington for her new home.


As for the lion- as I understand its the Barbury lion. It is used to represent the English crown. The supporter on the other side, has the crown around its neck, as it doesn't represent the royal crown. In the Canadian coat of arms, the lion doesn't have a crown on the supported, though the unicorn has it around the neck.

 

[DuchessMia]

What would she include to honor the Markles??? Kate's coat of arms includes her family because it isn't her coat of arms. It is the Middleton coat of arms, it was issued to her father and family. Her personal one, is the one of a daughter of the family. Meghan's is not a family coat of arms, it is her personal one. And as such it reflects her as a person.

I don't think the bald eagle or a bear were necessary. The bald eagle would be far too patriotic for a new British princess. And she has enough nods to California without including the bear.


I love the design. The blue and sun rays, the poppies all clear nods to California and her parents in a way. As an actress and now as a royal, communication is a key part of her world. The quils and the songbird are great. I love they included the flowers from Kensington for her new home.


As for the lion- as I understand its the Barbury lion. It is used to represent the English crown. The supporter on the other side, has the crown around its neck, as it doesn't represent the royal crown. In the Canadian coat of arms, the lion doesn't have a crown on the supported, though the unicorn has it around the neck.

Excellent post. I love it. It really is representative of Meghan.

 

[Ista]

What would she include to honor the Markles??? Kate's coat of arms includes her family because it isn't her coat of arms. It is the Middleton coat of arms, it was issued to her father and family. Her personal one, is the one of a daughter of the family. Meghan's is not a family coat of arms, it is her personal one. And as such it reflects her as a person.

I don't think the bald eagle or a bear were necessary. The bald eagle would be far too patriotic for a new British princess. And she has enough nods to California without including the bear.


I love the design. The blue and sun rays, the poppies all clear nods to California and her parents in a way. As an actress and now as a royal, communication is a key part of her world. The quils and the songbird are great. I love they included the flowers from Kensington for her new home.


As for the lion- as I understand its the Barbury lion. It is used to represent the English crown. The supporter on the other side, has the crown around its neck, as it doesn't represent the royal crown. In the Canadian coat of arms, the lion doesn't have a crown on the supported, though the unicorn has it around the neck.

30 pieces of silver?

Agree with he rest of your post.

 

[Osipi]

I keep hearing that some are asking why not use the bald eagle or the grizzly bear. I think I've come up with the reason why. The bald eagle is representative of the United States and the grizzly bear is the official state animal for California. What was included in Meghan's coat of arms is nothing "official" or relating to the United States but rather reflective of her home environment hence keeping the coat of arms totally British.

Just thoughts.

 

[Countessmeout]

I keep hearing that some are asking why not use the bald eagle or the grizzly bear. I think I've come up with the reason why. The bald eagle is representative of the United States and the grizzly bear is the official state animal for California. What was included in Meghan's coat of arms is nothing "official" or relating to the United States but rather reflective of her home environment hence keeping the coat of arms totally British.

Just thoughts.

Well except the golden poppy, which is the official state flower of California.

 

[elsegeblucas]

I believe that Meghan will be happy to be under her husbands coat of arms only. Their wedding was unusual as far as royalty goes as was their engagement. Both Meghan and Harry are quite philanthropic and this likeness cemented their relationship initially.A symbol that represents "giving"if any thing, might be within the artwork of an emblem of the coat of arms. I would think the universal plate, a round symbol representing that which is offered to humanity might well be part of the design if ever one is given.
It would also be quite in keeping with modernisation of the royals. The symbols must have meaning.

 

[Curryong]

But Meghan is not under her husband's Coat of Arms only. This is her personal Coat of Arms, approved by herself and the Queen, as was made clear by the Palace when it was released yesterday.

 

[ACO]

I am glad it was issued to her and her only.

 

[hel]

For anyone concerned that the bird looks a bit strangled around the eyes, it's important to remember that the picture that was released is one interpretation of the actual arms.

In heraldry, what's granted isn't a picture, it's the "blazon", which can then be drawn in any particular style you want. A blazon is the written description of the elements, in the very particular language of heraldry (a mix of French and English that has a very specific syntax).

So what was actually granted to Meghan is:

Azure, a Feather bendwise Argent quilled between two Bendlets Or all between two like Feathers Argent quilled Or;

They haven't published the blazon of the songbird yet (aka "the sinister supporter"). My best guess at it would be:

A Songbird Argent with wings addorsed and expanded/elevated speaking and unguled Or and gorged with a Coronet Or composed of crosses formy and fleurs-de-lys. (Note: there's something missing, but I can't figure out what would to use to describe the bird's foot holding on to the shield -- it may be that that's artistic license and not in the blazon)

So you could draw feathers that were fluffier and rounder, as long as they're white (Argent) with a gold shaft (quilled Or). And you could draw a songbird that had a less square beak, as long as the beak is yellow and open (speaking and unguled Or). All of those would be valid artistic interpretations of the blazon.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I like Meghans's Coat of Arms. The symbols are clear and attractive.
Could the crown around the neck also be a reference to Lord Hussey, supposedly her ancestor, being beheaded?