I felt that the inescutcheon of pretence was important in our family as it represents the extinguishing of a line. By the subsequent quartering however, that line is memorialized.

Larry

Kenneth Mansfield;81724 wrote:

Because that’s the way it’s done.

A husband does not "claim" his wife’s arms, but as the man of the family he represents her and acts on her behalf. Therefore he bears her arms in pretense. She, on the other hand, marshals her arms with his and their children will quarter them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_of_Birgitte,_Duchess_of_Gloucester.svg

The above arms, are the arms of Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester. According to what you said these arms should be of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. So I’m not sure that this is how things work in this case.

sterios;81752 wrote:

The above arms, are the arms of Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester. According to what you said these arms should be of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. So I’m not sure that this is how things work in this case.

In the UK, the marshalling of the royal arms is a law unto itself.  That’s why these couldn’t be the arms of the Duke of Gloucester; royal princes in the UK such as the Duke of Gloucester do not impale their wives’ arms with their own, but bear only the royal arms differenced with the particular label assigned to them.

Normally the wives (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Diana Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, etc.) display the husband’s and father’s arms impaled just like anyone else.  I gather that Brigitte is a heraldic heiress—she has no brothers—and perhaps that is the reason for the unusual arrangement, since by the royal custom her status as an heiress could not be indicated on the duke’s arms.

Michael F. McCartney;81749 wrote:

I’m trying to remember what (if anything) relevant we say in our Guidelines re: quartering vs. pretense for spouse’s arms.

As Yogi Berra says, "You could look it up."

Quote:

3.3.1.1. There are a number of ways in which a husband and wife can display their arms together. The best known in the English-speaking world is impalement, in which the shield is divided in half vertically, with the husband’s arms placed in the dexter and the wife’s in the sinister. The impaled arms are traditionally displayed with the husband’s helmet and crest. If the wife has no brothers to inherit her father’s arms, and her father is deceased, then instead of impaling the two arms, hers may be placed on a small escutcheon in the center of the husband’s shield, known as an escutcheon of pretense.

3.3.1.2. In the United States, while employed by many families, the marshaling of marital arms on a single shield has never been universal, and it should definitely be looked upon by American couples today as one among a number of options for armorial display, not as something required by formal rules. One alternative is to display each spouse’s arms on a separate shield, or on a shield and a lozenge, side by side in a single artistic composition. When this is done, the husband’s arms are customarily placed to dexter; in some traditions the charges on the husband’s arms, as well as the helm and crest, are turned so that they face toward the wife’s arms.

Joseph McMillan;81753 wrote:

In the UK, the marshalling of the royal arms is a law unto itself.

This is true, and it explains why the duke’s arms don’t bear Brigitte’s arms in pretense.

But it doesn’t explain her arms.  The arrangement of the duchess’s arms is the norm for any married heraldic heiress.  Kenneth and I were in error.  According to Brooke-Little’s edition of Boutell’s Heraldry,, "A married woman bears on a shield her paternal arms marshalled with those of her husband, by impalement or escutcheon of pretence."

Joseph McMillan;81767 wrote:

"A married woman bears on a shield her paternal arms marshalled with those of her husband, by impalement or escutcheon of pretence."

See if I’m following here, a married woman can bear her paternal arms on an escutcheon over the husband’s arms on a shield (as opposed to lozenge)?  This being typical only if she has no brothers?

Alternatively, she may simply bear her paternal arms impaled with her husband’s arms on a shield as well?

JBGarrison;81768 wrote:

See if I’m following here, a married woman can bear her paternal arms on an escutcheon over the husband’s arms on a shield (as opposed to lozenge)? This being typical only if she has no brothers?

If we’re talking the traditional English system here: she has no choice. If she has no brothers and no chance of having any (i.e., her father is dead), she bears her husband’s arms on a shield with her father’s arms superimposed on an inescutcheon.

Quote:

Alternatively, she may simply bear her paternal arms impaled with her husband’s arms on a shield as well?

Not alternatively. If she has brothers (or if daddy is alive), this is her only choice.

A married woman has to use a shield (without crest, helm, motto, etc.); she may not use a lozenge. She may not bear her father’s arms except marshalled with those of her husband. If the husband is not armigerous, she should have listened to mummy and not married him.

In my chart of five families marshalled, my mother’s arms are shown on the lozenge (Louise Frazier). Since her father was deceased upon her marrige to my father (Lyle Snyder) and she had only sisters, I placed her arms on the shield of pretense with my father, as opposed to the usual impalement had she not been an heraldic heiress. My brother and I inherited the quartered Snyder and Frazier, however we could bear only Snyder if we wished.

Larry

Joseph McMillan;81770 wrote:

If the husband is not armigerous, she should have listened to mummy and not married him.

Hahahah! :animlol:

Given a choice, always marry an heiress.

I should add, just to be on the safe side, that what I gave are the traditional English rules.  In the last couple of decades, the kings of arms finally got around to recognizing that a century or so of legislation had pretty much undermined the legal rationale on which many of these rules were based (mainly the various acts on married women’s property, which overturned the common law principle that a married woman’s legal identity was subsumed into that of her husband).

So there actually is a bit more flexibility now with respect to a woman’s right to bear arms other than marshalled with her husband’s.  The issue is discussed somewhere in the forum, but I don’t have time right now to do a search.

Well, we have the English rules pretty well laid out here.  Personally (i.e. IMO & FWIW etc) I prefer what I (mis?)understand to be the Scottish practice, which generally doesn’t use the escutcheon of pretence for heiress’s arms—partly because I generally like Scottish practice, but mainly because in most cases its artistically better—doesn’t obscure the underlying main shield so much.

There is a further issue with regard to the arms of the Duchess of Gloucester.  She is titled and known as "Princess Richard" or "Duchess of Gloucester", but not "Duchess Birgitte".  It is all tied up with the lines of inheritance to the throne.  From that wonderful and ever accurate epitome of truth and accuracy, Wikipedia, "The Duchess of Gloucester’s style and title in full: Her Royal Highness Princess Richard Alexander Walter George, Duchess of Gloucester, Countess of Ulster and Baroness Culloden, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order."  Thus she bears his arms with hers as an escutcheon.