Meghan Markle: Coat of Arms Discussion

[cmsteepy]

Just before Prince Harry and Meghan Markle get married, they will likely be granted titles from the Queen. In addition, Meghan’s father, Thomas Wayne Markle will likely be granted his own Coat of Arms (CoA) so that Meghan can have her own CoA which will later be impaled with Prince Harry’s to create her new royal CoA. This would be a similar process in which both Kate Middleton and Sarah Ferguson received their CoA.

Thomas Markle’s CoA will be presented on a shield, while Meghan’s, as an unmarried woman, will have the same design but presented on a lozenge (a diamond shape).

[Curbside]

There was discussion of this in another thread. There was speculation that T Markle's CoA would include some symbolism from Meghan's home state of California, such as a grizzly, or California poppy.

[Somebody]

I still wonder whether her father will get a Coat of Arms as a non-British citizen. Would it be possible to just grant Meghan a CoA (as is possible in other countries)?

[Panther2000]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I still wonder whether her father will get a Coat of Arms as a non-British citizen. Would it be possible to just grant Meghan a CoA (as is possible in other countries)?

I was thinkingthe samething. He is not a citizen, and i am pretty sure he never will become one.

Can some one please explain why is it, that in order for her to get a COA, it has to go through her father. I could understsnd if they were british like kate. But they aren't. I get the family thing it being passed down through the lines. But, i get that this is a 1st for the RF. But, if he gets a COA, does that meanthen all his other kids could also use that COA????????

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Panther2000

I was thinkingthe samething. He is not a citizen, and i am pretty sure he never will become one.

Can some one please explain why is it, that in order for her to get a COA, it has to go through her father. I could understsnd if they were british like kate. But they aren't. I get the family thing it being passed down through the lines. But, i get that this is a 1st for the RF. But, if he gets a COA, does that meanthen all his other kids could also use that COA????????

If the grant is made to Meghan's father, her siblings can use it too. Which is what makes me think (as well as him being a US citizen), this won't happen and the grant will be made directly to his daughter.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

If the grant is made to Meghan's father, her siblings can use it too. Which is what makes me think (as well as him being a US citizen), this won't happen and the grant will be made directly to his daughter.

I agree. Plus the fact that Tom Markle prefers to live a relatively private and unknown life in Mexico. I just don't see him as the type that would welcome or want to deal with this type of attention. He'll do whatever is necessary for his daughter, but I also think Meghan might want to protect her dad as much as she can from it.

[Spheno]

Honorary arms may be granted to U.S. citizens and to citizens of countries within the Commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State and where there is no national heraldic authority. They must meet the same criteria of eligibility for a grant as subjects of the Crown, and in addition they must record in the official registers of the College of Arms a pedigree showing their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be a recent forebear such as a parent or grandparent who lived in the same country under the British Crown; an emigrant from Britain, Ireland or anywhere else where the British monarch was Head of State; or a more distant ancestor such as inhabitant of the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783.
Granting of Arms - College of Arms

[Curbside]

Why would he need to be a UK citizen in order to receive a coat of arms?

Originally Posted by Spheno

Honorary arms may be granted to U.S. citizens and to citizens of countries within the Commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State and where there is no national heraldic authority. They must meet the same criteria of eligibility for a grant as subjects of the Crown, and in addition they must record in the official registers of the College of Arms a pedigree showing their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be a recent forebear such as a parent or grandparent who lived in the same country under the British Crown; an emigrant from Britain, Ireland or anywhere else where the British monarch was Head of State; or a more distant ancestor such as inhabitant of the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783.
Granting of Arms - College of Arms

Seems like this wouldn't be so hard to prove. Plenty of Americans have ancestors from England, Ireland, Africa, the Caribbean, etc.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Spheno

Honorary arms may be granted to U.S. citizens and to citizens of countries within the Commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth II is not Head of State and where there is no national heraldic authority. They must meet the same criteria of eligibility for a grant as subjects of the Crown, and in addition they must record in the official registers of the College of Arms a pedigree showing their descent from a subject of the British Crown. This may be a recent forebear such as a parent or grandparent who lived in the same country under the British Crown; an emigrant from Britain, Ireland or anywhere else where the British monarch was Head of State; or a more distant ancestor such as inhabitant of the north American colonies before the recognition of American independence in 1783.
Granting of Arms - College of Arms

I think when DF did the genealogy trace of Meghan's family, they traced one of her great great grandmothers is from UK. Does that count?

[Osipi]

With a coat of arms being granted to Tom Markle, I just had a vision of his daughter, Samantha flouting that coat of arms and presenting herself as a psuedo aristocrat as she has the coat of arms that is included in a royal coat of arms.

Big mistake right there. Just what we need. A roaring bear wearing a coat of arms. Then again, the US constitution says we have the right to arm bears. Oh wait... that's bear arms. Nevermind. (being facetious here)

[LadyGlendower]

Okay, I understand Major Ferguson (Sarah's dad) getting the CoA since he had close ties to the BRF through his service to them. I understand Michael Middleton getting the CoA since his family has a history of civic, military, and even Bletchley Park service in the UK.

But American Thomas Markle? I don't get it!

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by LadyGlendower

Okay, I understand Major Ferguson (Sarah's dad) getting the CoA since he had close ties to the BRF through his service to them. I understand Michael Middleton getting the CoA since his family has a history of civic, military, and even Bletchley Park service in the UK.

But American Thomas Markle? I don't get it!

Firstly, a woman can be granted arms in her own right but generally, the grant is made to the father of a family as arms are passed down the male line. They're used by females in the family too but they are inherited by the male children who pass them to their children etc etc.

But secondly, it goes back to the days when royal brides came from important families who would (over time) become close to the Sovereign and serve in some way. For example: Jane Smith marries the HRH the Duke of London. Her family get a COA as a token of the monarch's approval (and thanks) for providing future heirs. Years ago, they would have got a nice little title and perhaps an estate too. Mr Smith becomes Lord Smith (with his COA) and serves at court, as do his two sons. His daughter marries a distant cousin of the Sovereign. Etc etc.

None of that will ever happen anymore but the COA going to the father rather than the individual is a bit of a throwback to a more chivalrous time when a royal marriage meant something totally different. It's a 1484 thing.

[LadyGlendower]

Thank you, Gaudete---I really wanted to know where the rules for this sort of thing came from and your last line was a gem.

[Somebody]

Did the duchess of Gloucester receive a Coat of Arms upon her marriage (to then prince Richard of Gloucester) and if so, how? Did she adopt her husband's CoA, did she get something for herself through her Danish father or was it given directly to her?

Comparing hers and Richard's it seems that the only difference (next to the different orders) is the escutcheon. On Wikipedia it is described as 'The Duke of Gloucester's arms and in the centre an escutcheon of pretence Azure a lapwing proper, on a chief Or two pairs of ostrich feathers in saltire Sable (with a reference to a book on heraldry). Furthermore, it is stated that the 'escutcheon of pretence' was granted to her by Royal Warrant on 18 July 1973. So, where does this 'escutcheon of pretence' come from/what is it based on/and was it only for her or also for her family?

Edit: meaning of 'escutcheon of pretence': "An escutcheon used to display the arms of the bearer's wife; not commonly used unless she is an heiress."

For the discussion it might be good to note that Birgitte's parents were divorced and she took her mother's surname after their parents separated, so that might have been taken into account when looking into the issue. That's probably why she was granted her escutcheon only a year after marriage (when it also had become clear that she would be the future duchess).

[Countessmeout]

It's quite possible they will choose to just grant it to Meghan. Though I guess Tom does have a son, but they may not wish it to pass down through Tom Jr either.

Many families have coat of arms. I know at least one of my families does, though my father is through the female line, so we wouldn't have use of it. Our family crest (different, but taken from the original coat) looks like a lion/mermaid hybrid holding an axe.

Whether they give it to Meghan or her father, I don't see it not happening in one form. I don't think we will see an acting mask involved in it though. Way too comical looking, and a reminder of something many people think is a tick against her. I do think we will see inclusion of things like symbols like a bear or other symbols for California.

[Spheno]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Whether they give it to Meghan or her father, I don't see it not happening in one form. I don't think we will see an acting mask involved in it though. Way too comical looking, and a reminder of something many people think is a tick against her. I do think we will see inclusion of things like symbols like a bear or other symbols for California.

They can use an acting mask or loops of 35-milimetre film like in this case: The Arms and Crest of Christopher Corbould - College of Arms

[Somebody]

I quite like the design but his was granted because of his services to film while Meghan's will be granted because she is marrying into the royal family. So, I don't think they will go that route for her.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Spheno

They can use an acting mask or loops of 35-milimetre film like in this case: The Arms and Crest of Christopher Corbould - College of Arms

There is a difference IMO in using film loops in a coat of arms for someone like Christopher, then Meghan. Christopher was granted his as part of his OBE for services in the film industry. So honoring his film industry work made sense.

Meghan on the other hand is leaving behind acting, and this is honoring her entrance into the royal family.

Though the more traditional acting mask (not the theatrical one the OP used) would be less shocking, the film loops certainly are more attractive. But I still think it unlikely we will see either. Its a family coat, not simply Meghan.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Though the more traditional acting mask (not the theatrical one the OP used) would be less shocking, the film loops certainly are more attractive. But I still think it unlikely we will see either. Its a family coat, not simply Meghan.

Not that I'm advocating for either to be included. I couldn't careless to be honest. But wouldn't this be Meghan's coat of arms and their children would use Harry's or modify based on that?

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Not that I'm advocating for either to be included. I couldn't careless to be honest. But wouldn't this be Meghan's coat of arms and their children would use Harry's or modify based on that?

If it was granted to Meghan, yes it would end with her.

But if they go the traditional root, and grant it to her father, no. It can pass down the male line. And Tom has a son, so there is a chance for it to continue passing down.

There also seems to be conjugal coat of arms, so that Meghan's and Harry's will be combined together.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24303317

Also among royal children, they don't commonly use their parents coat of arms. William and Harry were granted their own. And their coat of arms included aspects from the Spencer coat of arms. In their case shells were used from the Spencer. The York girls have bees included from the Ferguson coat of arms. Its not unthinkable any kids Harry and Meghan have, will include aspects of her coat of arms.