While I make fun of so much of the arcane bullsh-t that comes with royalty, I will admit that I do find some of this stuff to be rather charming and interesting. Like, I’m fascinated by coats of arms and the creation of a specific Coat of Arms for a newly married royal couple. It’s fascinating to me. What visual motifs would I want in my Coat of Arms? Something involving kittens and dogs, probably. Maybe something to reflect my love of watching tennis on TV? And some kind of visual representation of my liberal politics (perchance a donkey?). But for the newly minted Duchess of Sussex, her Coat of Arms went in a different direction:
A Coat of Arms has been created for The Duchess of Sussex: https://t.co/mJb3mqZfaZ pic.twitter.com/0EgbiS29Rb
— Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) May 25, 2018
Just looking at it without the backstory on what means what, I just have to say that I’m disturbed by how angry the lion looks and “songbird” looks angry AF too. Here’s what went into it:
A Coat of Arms has been created for The Duchess of Sussex. The design of the Arms was agreed and approved by Her Majesty The Queen and Mr. Thomas Woodcock (Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England), who is based at the College of Arms in London. Her Royal Highness worked closely with the College of Arms throughout the design process to create a Coat of Arms that was both personal and representative.
The blue background of the shield represents the Pacific Ocean off the California coast, while the two golden rays across the shield are symbolic of the sunshine of The Duchess’s home state. The three quills represent communication and the power of words. Beneath the shield on the grass sits a collection of golden poppies, California’s state flower, and wintersweet, which grows at Kensington Palace.
It is customary for Supporters of the shield to be assigned to Members of the Royal Family, and for wives of Members of the Royal Family to have one of their husband’s Supporters and one relating to themselves. The Supporter relating to The Duchess of Sussex is a songbird with wings elevated as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication. A Coronet has also been assigned to The Duchess of Sussex. It is the Coronet laid down by a Royal Warrant of 1917 for the sons and daughters of the Heir Apparent. It is composed of two crosses patée, four fleurs-de-lys and two strawberry leaves. The arms of a married woman are shown with those of her husband and the technical term is that they are impaled, meaning placed side by side in the same shield.
Some of that was gibberish to me, but it’s interesting nonetheless. This is the Coat of Arms for ONLY Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. I believe Meghan and Harry will have their own Sussex Coat of Arms as well, correct? And this means that the Markle family won’t have a family Coat of Arms, which is fine with me. Better to just give one to Meghan alone. The Coat-of-Arms creator, Thomas Woodcock, spoke on behalf of the design, saying that Meghan “took a great interest in the design” and that they created something which he hopes will stand the test of time.
Photos courtesy of WENN and Pacific Coast News.
Horrendous. Looks like a grade 8 “coat of arms” project.
Still love her though!
Yeah, to be honest, it has kind of a cartoonish, amateur look about it to me. Surely the other family coats of arms are more elegant, serious, and dignified than this one!
Not really. Like Will and Kate have a freaking unicorn in theirs. They all look cartoonish. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10338976/Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridge-get-a-joint-coat-of-arms.html
Have you never seen any? Honestly, I think this one is quite beautiful. They all have that kind of style, really. My husbands ancestors had two hounds in their COA. One of my ancestors has an angry eagle over two terrified looking horses.
I mean – none of them are going to be ‘elegant’ in the sense that I think you’re hoping. They’re all cartoonish, really. Look up heraldic symbols. It’s pretty interesting really.
I find this coat-of-arms charming. It lacks a Kitten Rampant, but that’s okay. As an artist, I never do cartoons, but this is the correct, traditional style.
The Unicorn is actually the National Animal of Scotland, and it appears in many many places and coats of arms, sorry if it looks too cartoonish!
I find it odd that the unicorn is chained, though.
According to folklore, a free unicorn is a dangerous beast so it is always depicted chained in British heraldry.
Samantha is going to be tweeting angrily quite a bit today 🙂
Right!!!
I wonder if she realises (or will realise) that her own idiocy cut her off from having a CoA she could use. Ditto her brother.
@LAK ikr!!! She was probably hoping to set up display and charge people to come and view it!!
Weren’t they cut off years ago and where never going to be invited hence their anger and idiocy with the lashing out?
Loopy: If Thomas the father had received a CoA, then ALL his children could use it as well as any descendants in the male line.
Upon his death, it would be inherited by his eldest son etc and so forth in the male line.
In other words, regardless of their behaviour and ill-feelings, Samantha, Thomas Jnr and those 2 Dooley twins would have been able to use it, market it etc.
I think one of the Dooley twins is trying to market a brand of weed with called ‘Royal Markle’ with a coronet above the name. With the CoA, he would have added authenticity to his logo.
@LAK absolutely not! She will blame Meghan, Harry — probably even the Queen herself — before it ever occurs to her that her trashy behavior is what will keep her iced out of that family forever. And if she thinks her father deserves one…well I don’t have anything nice to say about that man at this point so it’s best that I stop typing!
Btw I just sent out an SOS for backup from you in the Kate post : )
A point of curiosity – What is to prevent her family from using her coat of arms? Is there anything preventative? Could they just claim it as something that belongs to their family and carry on?
AmyLue: It’s an IP of sorts. They’d be sued if they tried.
@LAK – Thank you for that. I wondered if there was something like that. I could just see the family claiming her Coat of Arms as their own. They really are insufferable.
Honestly, I was low-key amused at how Samantha and Tom Jr. were acting because I knew they were setting themselves up for a massive fail. Especially wrt the Coat of Arms. The minute I learned it would be easy to just give Meghan a CoA in her own right, I knew the Markle family would never get one.
Seriously, these people – Samantha, Tom Jr., etc – are dumb as rocks. They are trying to grift the British Royal Family. Like, bitch *really?* You didn’t even have the smarts to STFU the minute you heard Meghan and Harry were dating (which is like, an easy gimmie on how this game is played). Y’all were never going to win wrt any of this. If this was Game of Thrones, the Markle family would have been wiped out before they could even reach the Kingsroad to begin traveling anywhere, never mind something like the Red Wedding.
The House of Windsor plays the long game. They think in terms of years – 25, 50, 100 years. Sammy and Tom Jr. were barely thinking past the next check they could get.
morrigan01: Exactly.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that life long goodies would come their way either directly or indirectly for generations to come even if they never received any wedding invitation.
Of course, coats of arms aren’t really used here in the US anyway.
@morrigan01, and here I thought no one could play the game worse than Catelyn Stark!
Lolol! Serves her right!
She was already tweeting last week. I don’t know how she became aware that wives’ families get their own coat of arms, cause she complained to People and tweeted that it was “offensive” for the Markle family not to get one. LOL.
She now lists herself as a “Freedom of Speech Advocate” on her Twitter. It’s like she goes, “How can I seem as idiotic and pathetic as possible?!” “MEGAN CANNOT SILENCE ME?!” As if Meghan has her on her radar.
Cue her troll relatives showing their a**es in 3…2…
Also 10 bucks at least one of them will wear it
Samantha Markle is most deserving of her own coat of arms. May I suggest a straitjacket.
THIS!
As someone who loves books, work in an industry that is all about communication, and can’t stop talking (and writing)…….Huzzah!!!
The bird looks like it’s squawking miserably because its crown has slipped down around its neck and choking the poor creature.
Communication, my buns. That’s a cry of distress!
That’s what I thought too. The choking crown is really weird to me.
Yes! Why is that bird choking on a crown? Bad omen.
Because the crown is too big for it’s pretty little commoner head? JK.
The songbird looks like he’s having a rant about the rogue Markles.
I don’t like it. The meaning behind it is nice but the execution is clumsy, unbalanced and inelegant.
Different strokes for different folks, I never even thought about choking when I looked at the crown till I read these comments. All I thought was that the crown being used as some sort of neck ornament like in some African tribes that have long neck ornaments as in this picture: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/339458890636082309/
I don’t understand those CoA but it makes me so happy to know that Vonnie is choking and pulling all her hair out just because this is Meghan’s CoA and her’s only.
@Masamf who is Vonnie??
@Argonaut Vonnie aka Samantha Grant aka Samantha Markle
I instantly thought of Maya Angelou’s Caged Bird when I saw the crown around its neck. My other thought was they it looks more like a hen with those scrawny chicken legs than it does a songbird.
Now that you mention it… wow
The crown is like that on Kate’s Duchess of Cambridge coat of arms also. It seems that it’s just the style.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge.svg
The crown around the neck is technically known as being “ducally gorged” if I remember my heraldry correctly. It symbolizes being tied to a dukedom. Heraldry is super-fascinating as literally EVERYTHING carries a meaning. There are no mistakes, so to speak, in a properly designed coat of arms. If a lion is wearing, say, a red cloak you can bet there is a certain piece of symbolism in that. Back in the olden days when this was more important, nobility could tell a lot from a coat of arms, like what part of a country you were from etc. German heraldry differs from British which differs from Swedish, and so forth.
That is really fascinating. I love symbolism in things and putting that much thought into every little bit is pretty great, actually.
@Melusine how I’ve lived so long without coming across the term “ducally gorged” is beyond belief. I see Elegance, eloquence with a soupçon of naughty when I look at those words (I’m off now to find out what it actually means)
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Wonderful history. Thanks for this.
I did see on Twitter the red shells in the white around lions neck on Harry’s side of the COA are actually from the Spencer coat of arms. Nice nod to his mom’s side I thought.
The whole thing is just so ridiculous. Coat of arms?? Duchess?? Come on!! This is supposed to be a modern American woman, a feminist, a humanitarian. If she believed any of that stuff she spouts, she would refuse the Duchess title, coat of arms, curtsying, all the things that say some humans are born as better than others. And the humanitarian claims are silly, with 250K gowns, and $30 million security to taxpayers, $56K engagement dresses, Jaguars, etc. Give me a big fat American break!!
I am not buying her feminist and humanitarian claims for one more second.
Meghan!! Changing the royal family with her titles and coat of arms!! Excellent!!
@Trixie, feminism is defined as “the belief and aim that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men; the struggle to achieve this aim”. In addition, feminism is to belief that women can and have as equal the rights to make their own decisions about their lives. A feminist is one that refrains from denigrating women because of the decisions they make for themselves, their families, their lives and their future. IMO, Meghan fits the definition of a feminist and I don’t see how her acceptance of a CoA or the duchess title take anything away from her feminism. And if Meghan identifies as a feminist, who are we to say otherwise? People are who they identify themselves as they are; when biracial people identify as a AA, i find it very disturbing when people start going on and on about how that person isn’t black enough to be a AA. What right do we have to tell people who or what they are?
She doesn’t have the same rights and opportunities as a Duchess, by definition. She is now an extension of her husband without whom she will curtsey to those who would otherwise curtsey to her. She is defined by him. Do you see the irony? I like Meghan but to try and twist marrying into such an institution as feminist choice is not going to fly with most women in modern societies. Call it anything else but feminist it ain’t..
Trixie P.. Are you really Veronica T? Asking for a friend.
@ Alice
There are many flavors w/in the feminist label. Surely there’s space for someone like the Duchess?
@masamf, when you say you are a feminist, yet give up your entire life, and your independent voice, to join a family that is where they are only through the luck of the uterus rather than merit, when you have a “title,” which says you are better than others, when you have a “coat of arms,” like it’s not some made up make believe, when you now have to take orders from the family, walk behind your husband, and have shown a real love for the gilded life – sorry. No way are you a feminist. Feminism is NOT about respecting every choice other women make, especially what that choice subjugates them to entitled mostly unemployed people.
Yes, it is her choice. No, she can’t claim she is a feminist with any credibility after her choices. She gave that up willingly.
Yes, that’s the only thing that bothers me. Why couldn’t it have been a smaller crown placed on the head? The placement is a bit disturbing.
The crown on the female side of the coat or arms is always around the neck to show they are married in and not born royal. This is the same for Camilla, Kate, Sophie, etc.
Women on their own don’t get a shield but a lozenge. Princess Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie have their own coat of arms as well.
The Lion and that half of the shield is Harry’s. If they show a joint Coat of Arms it wouls simply be two full shields (Harry’s half, and Meghan’s half). The lion and bird don’t look any different to other Coat of Arms.
A Markle family crest…tasteful renditions of Burger King crowns and TMZ?
Hey minx, you forgot the almighty frap with a crown shaped koozie!!! 😁
Perfect! 😂
It looks like the crown is choking the bird and cutting off her voice, which is unfortunate. Also, CA poppies are a much lovelier, more vibrant shade of orange. That lion looks randy…
I thought the bird’s foot touching the shield was a chain when i first saw it and yes the crown on the bird’s neck seems off putting…more like a muzzle of sorts…oh well…
Mmmhmm. That with the crown or collar around its neck is a little S&Mish. Lol.
That lion is a saucy fellow. He’s like, “Hey there. Grrr.”
The colours and styles in a coat of arms are limited by tradition. California Poppy colour probably isn’t in the range.
I can’t take any of this seriously!
Yup. Its butt ugly.
Right?? A coat of arms to show how above they are over the rest of us. A title to show the same.
Feminist Humanist Fail, Meghan!
Here we go… Telling other women they’re failing some feminist authenticity test because their choices don’t align with yours. Let’s not do this.
Thank you^^^ who appointed trixie as the feminism expert?
@Maria S., IKR?
@maria s – any woman who understands feminism would see Meghan’s choices as not feminist at all. Yes, we do get to define things. That is how standards are created. I discussed how I see this elsewhere on the thread. Perhaps you missed it?
So do women who change their last names stop being feminists? Because they give up their identity for a man and that is against the principles of feminism.
How cool that the focus is on the power of communication! I would totally want a songbird on my coat of arms. Also dogs and coffee.
So Catherine had the Middleton Coat of Arms, which was joined with Will’s to make a Cambridge one, but Meghan’s is just for her? And later we’ll get a Sussex one?
No, the Middleton’s have one, and Kate got one upon marrying Prince William, same as Meghan. Components of the Middleton CoA were incorporated into Kate’s half, though.
The Middleton’s do have a coat of arms – I believe they paid for it, it was released just before Kate’s wedding.
They were granted a coat of arms, no different to Megan.
https://www.royal.uk/new-coat-arms-miss-middleton-and-her-family
@Digital Unicorn, want the CoA granted to them just like it was gonna get granted to TM Sr. for free? I don’t think they paid anything for it.
Meghan’s coat of arms is her own. Kate’s half of the coat of arms is really her father’s. So I know Meghan is being accused of not being a feminist, but within a patriarchal tradition she has managed to have her own CoA.
I like it. And I think all the animals depicted on coats-of-arms always look pissed off, I think that’s just… You know… the style. Maybe because if you go to war under a banner and your coat of arms is depicted, you don’t want a smiling lion or whatever. Even if you have a fish, you want that fish to look like a straight gangsta fish – a murder fish.
Haha! I want a Murder Fish on my Coat of Arms!
Murder fish has me howling, thank you for that!
Murder fish is my new everything.
you want that fish to look like a straight gangsta fish – a murder fish. — This. is. awesome!
Murder fish! Honestly, if you didn’t already have a great tag (Beer&Crumpets), I’d say, you need to change it to MurderFish! LOL!
Murder Fish, perfect name for a punk band.
I think it’s sweet.
Why would they make the crown appear to be strangling the bird’s voice??
Why isn’t the crown on the bird’s head…to “equal” to her husband? I’m too lazy to look it up, but is Kate’s crown on her CoA on her head or neck? Sophie’s? Was Diana’s? INQUIRING MINDS WANNA KNOW! 😊
Yes they all were. See Diana’s here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales_(1981-1996).svg
Thank you! 😊
I’m not a fan of the bird and lion but I think the middle part of it is beautiful. I can tell it was thought out based on the Press release. I also adore Meghan’s new letter head. I keep remembering that she has spectacular penmanship.
I see the lion is from Harry’s coat of arms. I guess it’s a British thing to have it facing that way.
The Crown around the birds neck is custom I think. Harry’s coat of arms has a unicorn with the crown around its neck.
Apparently Kaiser & I would have the exact same imaginary coat of arms. 😂
I love it. I don’t think the songbird looks angry at all. Look at the lions on other coats of arms. I think it’s lovely, and pretty standard and consistent with other coats of arms. And I think it’s a wonderful gesture. I don’t get all the picking apart and “angry AF.”
I might be in minority but I like it. I think the songbird is a delicate and lovely animal. Honestly for a biracial American with no long term “history” or ancestry she can trace I think it’s nice. But I have no knowledge of this sort of thing so I have no idea if any of the symbols are secretly disses or whatever.
Do you mean can’t trace her long term ancestry in America or Britain? I assume she could trace her ancestry in the US.
No need to trace ancestry to create a CoA. You can have whatever you want in your CoA. It’s not that thoughtful an exercise.
As an example, the Middleton CoA has white lines symbolising their love of mountains and skiing, and a gold chevron to symbolise Carole’s maiden name of Goldsmith.
Actually, if you Google it, she does have a long ancestry, esp. on her father’s side, tracing back in Britain, including a distant connection to Edward III. Interesting read.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a13988049/meghan-markle-royal-ancestors-royal-blood/
Thank God it’s only for Meghan. A coat of arms is a big deal and the Markles don’t deserve it.
Yes!
Now that you mention it, I bet the Markles commission their own CoA. Expect them to debut it shortly.
They may *want* to, but it has to be “accepted” by petition to the College of Arms: “…..such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account.”
And in the case of Commonwealth and Americans: “…..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…”
So yeah… I *don’t* think they’ll get accepted on ANY terms! lolol
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms
THIS!
Frankly, she should change her name to whatever it is that the royals use as a surname (Windsor or Wales?) and be done with the Markels. I feel so bad for her that this is her family. Can’t she be Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Wales or Meghan Windsor?
@rabbitgirl she is no longer Meghan Markle. She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She doesn’t have Markle as her surname, I don’t know if she would use Sussex or Windsor in its place but it’s definitely not Markle anymore, just like Kate is no longer Catherine Middleton.
some of the press will continue to call her Meghan Markle though, just like they do Kate Middleton.
I think it would be Harry and Meghan Sussex.
The royals don’t have a surname. They only have their first names. So on her marriage she becomes Rachel Meghan. That’s it.
However, for the purposes of legal documents they use the dynastic name of the royal family which is Mountbatten-Windsor for the Queen’s specific descendants and Windsor for the wider family. To that end, Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.
Additionally, they have the option of using their dominion ducal titles as surnames. On their marriage she became Duchess of Sussex. To that end She’s Rachel Meghan Sussex.
Very true. I saw Diana’s royal/diplomatic(?) passports at an exhibit about her life once. She signed all of them simply “Diana.”
I wanted Doria to be included, but I don’t know that it’s possible, or if Doria herself wants it. She may have taken a look at some of the Coat of Arms renditions and just murmured a hasty, “No thank you.”
A CoA is only offered to MALE members of the family. It’s another corner of the patriarchy still unchanged.
Only British citizens are allowed a coat of arms right?
MrsBump: People from other countries can receive a CoA as long as they show pedigree linking them back to Britain via descent from Britain or Ireland or anywhere in the world that once had a British Monarch as head of State, which includes *America.
* There is a cut off point for America of 1783 which is the date of the Paris treaty between Britain and USA and their mutual international allies in which Britain relinquished it’s claims on America (and many other points irrelevant for this discussion).
Therefore for those countries that were (or considered) British colonies eg America before 1783, anyone descended from their inhabitants, established in the colonies before the date Britain relinquished claims to said colonies, can be granted a CoA.
So, am I right in reading that as saying that an American whose Dutch ancestors resided in colonial America would be eligible, but an American whose Dutch ancestors immigrated to the US after World War II would not?
That seems like a reasonable rule, but I can see it being one of several reasons Meghan might want to sidestep family coats of arms entirely. Most African-Americans have British ancestors, but they aren’t necessarily able to document them. I don’t think a rule for UK coats of arms should be tailored around America’s history of slavery or anything, but I can see the combination of that and the patriarchal angle leading Meghan to decide to get a coat of arms for herself but skip getting one for her father’s side of the family.
Meghan the feminist strikes again.
Lunchcoma: Yes. The suggestion being that you rescinded your Britishness in 1783. Any settlers after that date have no claim to Britain.
Coats of Arms are usually granted to males. Royal brides receive them because of royal privilege not because of ancestry. Meghan’s dad receives it as a gift extended by the Queen, and if i recall his family tree is traceable to England and Scotland in 14th century on the Markle side. That allows for reframing of her ancestry to skip over the slavery angle on her father’s side.
The sister is already bitter about not getting a coat of arms. I bet she had a duplicate anyway
poor Markle family… No Signet For You!
#alaseinfeldsoupvendor
Right?,😁😊
I thought of Soup Nazi too! lolol. Good one!
Ha! Great.
The white space between the bird and shield feels excessive. It makes the whole thing feel off kilter to me. Other than that, whatever, it’s fine.
Thank God that Crazy Samantha and vile Tom Jnr have no opportunity to use this Coat of Arms. Otherwise I can imagine packs of Tom Dooley’s marijuana ‘Royal Crop’ being sold with this on the front.
I think it’s a very attractive Coat of Arms, as these things go. A songbird, (half strangled by a coronet) communication, California poppies, blue skies and sun. Very nice. A bit of a nod to distant German Markle ancestors C of A as well in the feathers.
How would they stop him from using the CoA on his pot products? Hire an American lawyer to represent H & M in court? I can’t see a palace-issued cease and desist working on an US citizen.
Sure they would. Same way they put one out for the French publication that published Kate’s topless photos. They will sue and have every right to. I wouldn’t want those waste of air Markles to have ANYTHING to do with me and mine, if I was Meghan.
So happy for Meghan! She has her own coat of arms. Poor Samantha LOL
Poor Samantha? The Markles already have a universally recognized coat of arm… the poop emoji.
😂
👏👏👏
He might just as well have said the 2 yellow lines represents her love of Linguine noodles.
Wouldn’t sunshine be better depicted by lines that are narrow and then widen as they go down – think of the way children draw sun rays.
And the repeating feathers …almost like saying they cannot come up with any other ideas, so let’s just three-peat the one idea we have.
I think it’s beautiful! If I had a CoA, I’d want a cross, the ocean, a quill for my writing and animals everywhere!
Hee hee, woodcock.
Seriously though, I think it’s lovely. Love the blue for the Pacific Ocean. I was wondering if they would have to give the father a coat if arms, I didn’t realize it could be for one person not a family.
1. The father might have been offered one and he refused.
2. The father might have applied for one and been refused.
3. Given the way they’ve all behaved, father included, they might have let it slide in the sense that they didn’t offer the father anything because they realised it would be used by the rest of the family. Why reward bad behaviour.
4. They offered / father applied, CoA granted, but after his shenanigans, CoA withdrawn.
Also, the bride always receives her own CoA. In the Middleton case, Mike applied and received one which Kate incorporated into her personal and Joint CoA.
Thanks Lak, you are a fount of knowledge!
That makes sense. I’m guessing the second option is the least likely. Mike Middleton may have had some interest in getting a coat of arms, but I’m guessing Thomas Markle doesn’t know or care much more about them than any other American.
Whether no one offered or whether it was in the works and then shelved seems less clear. Either way, it’s probably for the best.
I’m guessing it wasn’t offered. According to the College of Arms, American citizens can only receive honorary arms – and they can’t be passed down to children. So even if Markle Sr. Had been granted (honorary) arms, he wouldn’t have been able to share it with Meghan anyway. No point in having them at all.
Birb: Help me, binch the crown is choking me.
Lion: WTF?
(that’s that they look like to me LOL)
LOL! “Arcane bullsh*t” is right; the whole damn thing looks ridiculous!
Is the Lion sticking its tongue out like Harry likes to do?
I think the only thing that bugs me is that the bird has a crown around its neck…it seems symbolic of the crown controlling/ suffocating a being that normally flies free. But, I’m probably reading too much into it.
Otherwise, totally happy for her and Harry.
Well since it is always the women who marry into the royal family that have the crown around their neck, then the whole “controlling” aspect definitely applies.
I think it’s pretty and don’t really get the angry vibes from either animal.
If I got a coat of arms, I’d totally want a housecat wielding a knitting needle on it.
No CoA for the trifling Markles. Meghan don’t play, the only statement she put out, was to address her father’s playing BS games, he’s coming, he’s not coming, he’s coming.
If Meghan’s father really is a direct descendant of Baron Hussey of Sleaford who was beheaded by Henry VIII (Someone did research on this), then he already has a coat of arms
If he(Baron Hussey) was beheaded by Henry 8, he would have forfeited all rights to his CoA.
Everyone judiciary killed by the state lost their rights for themselves and their descendants. Beheading was reserved for people who were held to have been treasonous to the crown which means Baron Hussey would have forfeited his titles, rights, estates and his name which would all have been attaindered.
In conclusion, Markle wouldn’t have a CoA despite veing a direct descendant because his ancestor forfeited them.
Thank you for this information – it is fascinating. I understood about forfeiture of properties and personal titles, but had assumed name and CoA would pass along to a relative still in good standing.
The bird look totally affraid