http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3127/article00bb106d40000057.jpg
The arms designed by the College of Arms for Kate Middleton. They were commissioned by Kate’s father for the family in time for her to use them at her marriage to Prince William of Wales. They’ll be impaled with William’s after they are married.
Here’s a link to an article in the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378441/Royal-Wedding-Kate-Middleton-gets-coat-arms-use-family-business-too.html
The article has aninteresting sidebar about "Who May Have A Coat of Arms". It is interesting reading because it encapsulates well the attitude in England towards this subject. It says, in part:
However, that doesn’t mean that just anybody can pay the fee and get a coat of arms. The cumulative knowledge of the Earl Marshal gathered over hundreds of years has given them the skill of tactfully suggesting that people don’t proceed with their application.
The late Peter Gwynn-Jones, a former Garter King of Arms, once said: ‘In practice, eligibility depends upon holding a civil or military commission, a sound university degree or professional qualification, or having achieved some measure of distinction in a field beneficial to society as a whole.’
I do not dispute that in any way as it applies to the area over which HM College of Arms has jurisdiction. But, it points out perfectly the difference between the attitude toward heraldry in England as opposed to the USA where ANYONE may rightfully and lawfully assume a coat of arms. The same idea as quoted in this article is often falsely applied by everyone everywhere to heraldry and that is not correct. The English approach is theirs and it works for them. They did not, however, invent heraldry and the norms governing who may have a coat of arms in England are not universal.
It was also interesting to note that the British press is often just as ignorant as the press all over. The several articles I’ve read frequently describe the new coat of arms as a "crest". Also the article in the Mail begins by saying, "Kate Middleton today joined the ranks of nobility as her very own coat of arms was unveiled…". Really? Getting a coat of arms made her noble? I believe marrying a prince will do more on that score. Since her father commissioned and was given the grant of arms does that make him noble too?
I saw an article about this in the Telegraph. Some of the reader comments were both ignorant and meanspirited - a bad combination.
Nice to see heraldry in the news.
I agree that the animosity in most of the comments was vicious and unnecessary. I was also disappointed by the overall lack of knowledge of heraldry by the commenters. I guess that as an American, I assume that everyone in the UK automatically has received an education about heraldry.
We don’t know if there are supporters, do we? That would affect the overall look of her arms impaled with Prince William’s. The lion supporter would be maintained but the unicorn would be replaced by a supporter of the Middleton arms. It will be interesting to see.
gselvester;82106 wrote:
We don’t know if there are supporters, do we? That would affect the overall look of her arms impaled with Prince William’s. The lion supporter would be maintained but the unicorn would be replaced by a supporter of the Middleton arms. It will be interesting to see.
Just hazarding a guess, but probably her dad doesn’t rise to the level of receiving a grant of supporters. If Kate were to get supporters I would think they would come as a separate grant once she is a princess.
I would guess that she might be given supporters of her own by Royal Warrant, if deemed necessary. Perhaps when/if she is appointed to one of the higher orders of knighthood?
Once she’s married she’ll not only be an HRH but, if precedent is still followed, she’ll also be a duchess and entitled to supporters.
I also understand that the choice of tinctures was after the national colors found on the Union Jack.
The arms were granted to her father which she and her sister are entitled to use as a courtesy. I haven’t yet seen her father’s achievement (assuming crest is there somewhere). Even the College of arms page only show’s Kate’s. That’s kind of disturbing - guess they are playing a bit to the press as well.
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7540/article00bb106c00000057.jpg
In all the hub-bub about Miss Middleton’s arms I forgot to mention the newer emblazonment of Prince William’s arms including helm and mantling as well as his garter. These were not part of his original grant of arms received when he turned 21.
gselvester;82102 wrote:
They did not, however, invent heraldry and the norms governing who may have a coat of arms in England are not universal.
I always get the impression that there are a lot of people who think that this is the case and that heraldry doesn’t exist (well real heraldry anyway) in other places. As a result you get the granted/assumed discussion, supporters, certain helmets etc.
Kathy McClurg;82112 wrote:
I haven’t yet seen her father’s achievement (assuming crest is there somewhere)...
and a motto as well.
With the wedding so close, I suspect the CoA concentrated on what had to be done now—arms and necessary fancy artwork for the new Princess—and will get around to the rest when the dust settles. They may or may not have decided on the crest (or motto, though that’s optional); but even if decided on, the artwork for crest, helm, manteling etc. is likely still in the queue.
I don’t think anyone will give a hang about this once the wedding is over (the arms as borne by the rest of the family, I mean). After the wedding she’ll have her arms impaled with William’s and that will be the end of it I warrant you. It seems that Ms. Middleton has been quickly tying up lots of loose ends prior to marriage. In addition to quickly getting a coat of arms I noted in an article today that she was privately (and finally) confirmed in the Church of England in a ceremony at St. James’ Palace conducted by the Bishop of London. Confirmation is still required in the CofE to receive other sacraments, like marriage, and since her husband will one day be Head of the Church of England all the "T"s must be crossed and all the "I"s dotted.
I still contend that if Kate weren’t marrying a man whose family has one of the most recognizable coats of arms in the world (and who use it on everything) which she will be expected, even required, to use she wouldn’t have a coat of arms at all. As Garter put it to one interviewer it wouldn’t do to have William’s arms impaled with a blank half of a shield. And, that would be what they’d do rather than Kate simply using her husband’s arms alone.
I’m not so sure Ms Middleton is doing the tying up of lots of loose ends, I’d warrant the royal family has a rather heavy hand in it. I can imagine the conversation:
"Here’s the list of things that have to be done before you can marry William, my dear."
<Kate faints>
It’s kind of like my question to the laywers when I bought my first house, "Is there any piece of paper here that I don’t have to sign and I can still get the house?" When the answer was "No" I just stopped reading and started signing.
