Familial Arms of the Windors

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
23 April 2010 15:15
 

This question was asked in another thread, as to what coat of arms would the Windsors display if they marshaled all of their ancestral arms.

The arms of the UK are theirs, rightfully inherited.  They seemingly display those arms alone as arms of dominion, which is why they do not display the other arms they might have a right to display because they hold no dominion over those realms.

 

So, supposing that the arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Hanover were included, the arms should look something like one of these following.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=50&pictureid=704

 

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should be in the first quarter, as the male side takes precedence, and these are the simple arms of Prince Albert.  I only used the arms of Saxony to show Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, though they display many more.

 

The arms of France are restricted in use by treaty, but I included them in the top row nonetheless.

 

Anyways, the left columns would be the more English marshaling.  The I and IV are Saxony, and II and III are the UK and Hanover combined.  Though not head of the Hanovers, I am assuming Victoria still would have a right to display those arms.  The right columns show the quarters more on equal standing, and gets rid of some of the subquarters and sub-subquarters.

 

I am sure I am missing quite a few quarters, especially those others of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  Anyone else with a try at it?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 April 2010 16:42
 

A non-royal Elizabeth Windsor, if governed by the same armorial laws that govern other English married women, would not bear any of these without impaling them with the arms of her husband, or, alternatively, bearing them with a mark of difference to show her married status.

That aside, I don’t think any of the English or Scottish quarterings (let alone the French ones) would come into the picture; her paternal arms would be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the arms of her direct paternal ancestors) quartered with the arms of the house of Braunschweig-Lueneberg, Mrs. Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s paternal line.

 

The English and Scottish lineage comes into Victoria’s ancestry through Sophie of the Palatinate, granddaughter of James VI & I.  But as she had brothers who survived and produced issue, she would not have conveyed to her son, George I, any right to her ancestral arms.

 

And of course, even if Sophie had been an only child, she would not have inherited the English and Scottish quarterings from her mother, Elizabeth Stuart, because she also had brothers (including Charles I) who survived and had issue.

 

And, for that matter, James VI & I’s genealogical arms wouldn’t have had England or Scotland in the first quarter, because his father was Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.

 

And so forth and so on.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
23 April 2010 18:02
 

Joseph McMillan;76070 wrote:

A non-royal Elizabeth Windsor, if governed by the same armorial laws that govern other English married women, would not bear any of these without impaling them with the arms of her husband, or, alternatively, bearing them with a mark of difference to show her married status.

That aside, I don’t think any of the English or Scottish quarterings (let alone the French ones) would come into the picture; her paternal arms would be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the arms of her direct paternal ancestors) quartered with the arms of the house of Braunschweig-Lueneberg, Mrs. Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s paternal line.


For why? Alexandrina Victoria of Braunschweig-Lueneberg had a surviving uncle with male heirs, so whilst she could be posited as heiress of the Duke of Kent’s differenced coat she was hardly an heiress of Braunschweig-Lueneberg.


Joseph McMillan;76070 wrote:

And, for that matter, James VI & I’s genealogical arms wouldn’t have had England or Scotland in the first quarter, because his father was Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.

And so forth and so on.


IIRC France differenced as a coat of augmentation quartered with Stewart, and if we’re being very pedantic, no right to Scotland (a Malcolmson coat) since that passed through the Balliols not the Bruces.

 

Ah the joys :D

 

James

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
23 April 2010 21:15
 

Well, I suppose that strictly speaking HM the Queen could use Quartered I and IV England, II Scotland, III Ireland, an inescutcheon of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Just as her son, the future King Charles III (or whichever name he wishes to be known as) can use an inescutcheon of Greece with an inescutcheon of Denmark (older style).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 April 2010 21:21
 

James Dempster;76073 wrote:

For why? Alexandrina Victoria of Braunschweig-Lueneberg had a surviving uncle with male heirs, so whilst she could be posited as heiress of the Duke of Kent’s differenced coat she was hardly an heiress of Braunschweig-Lueneberg.


But if we’re assuming that the English rules apply, and that these are all regular hereditary family arms, wouldn’t she be the heraldic heiress of her father’s arms whether he had brothers or not, as long as she  didn’t?

 

If John Jones marries Sally Smith, who has no brothers, don’t their children have the right to quarter Jones with Smith, whether John’s father has brothers or not?  In fact, I believe such quartering would obviate any theoretical need for John to difference his arms from his brothers’.