Prince George of Cambridge

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 25 Jul 2013, 05:39

I think Queen Victoria was the only other monarch who lived to see her great grandchildren, she didn't grant them arms. I think there was some speculation or suggestion on the part of Victorian experts that great grandchildren would or should receive seven pointed labels. Anyway, no member of the Royal Family has received one.


Quite correct.

While it would be logical for the son of a member of the Royal Family whose arms bear a label of five points to be granted the same arms but with a label of seven points, I can find no evidence that it ever happened.

Here is a link to a page that I think sets out accurately what has happened with royal marks of cadency over the centuries:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/cadency.htm

Note that both Edward (future King Edward VIII) and Albert (future King George VI) were not granted arms until 1911 and 1912 respectively. So although both were alive during the lifetime of their great grandmother Queen Victoria, neither had arms that might have required a label of 7. But note also that by the time the two princes were born their father, Prince George (later King George V) was already Duke of York with a label of three points. So the two infant princes would never have needed a label of 7 anyway!
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

Jonathan Webster
Posts: 304
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 21:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Jonathan Webster » 26 Jul 2013, 10:16

@Ryan, I just meant that were Harry to be granted Arms as a son of the sovereign, the Escallops would be retained. I wasn't aware the College had specifieneither thed he would have Arms with an escallop on each point of the three-point label.

Regarding Prince William, neither the Royal Arms nor the Arms of the Prince of Wales are hereditary (each grant to a royal family member is in theory a new grant and is not forced to be a differenced version of the Royal Arms-the Arms granted to Queen Victoria's great-grandson the 2nd Duke of Connaught weren't, though a differenced version of the Royal Arms was a quartering) and William thus had no right to difference them in any way without Royal Warrant.

User avatar
Edward Hillenbrand
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 01:42
Location: Catskill Mountains, New York, United States

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Edward Hillenbrand » 26 Jul 2013, 13:34

I believe Chris is correct. While I wish no harm to Queen Elizabeth, the reality is that she is an old lady and Prince George would be waiting 18 years before he is granted arms. I highly doubt that Her Majesty will still be alive at that time. If she is still breathing, there is serrious question if his Highness, Prince Charles would
be. :lol:
Ed Hillenbrand

"Tempus Fugit, Memento Mori"

Image
Armorial Register - International Register of Arm

User avatar
Chas Charles-Dunne
Posts: 624
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 15:48
Location: England - TL 80102 93862
Contact:

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chas Charles-Dunne » 26 Jul 2013, 13:57

Edward Hillenbrand wrote:I believe Chris is correct. While I wish no harm to Queen Elizabeth, the reality is that she is an old lady and Prince George would be waiting 18 years before he is granted arms. I highly doubt that Her Majesty will still be alive at that time. If she is still breathing, there is serrious question if his Highness, Prince Charles would
be. :lol:


Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother lived to be 102 years old.
Regards
Chas
IAAH Fellow

Image

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 26 Jul 2013, 15:20

We are of course venturing deep into the field of conjecture here. We neither know how long Queen Elizabeth may live, nor when Prince George may receive a Royal Warrant for a Grant of Arms.

We do however know (at least I think I have conclusively shown) that no member of the British Royal Family has ever been granted arms with a label of 7. While it might seem logical to assume that were Her Majesty to survive another 18 years (she would be 105) and remain Queen ¤, Prince George would be granted arms and that they would have a label as difference, would it necessarily be a label of 7? The symmetry - label of 3 for Monarch's children, 5 for grandchildren, 7 for great grandchildren, is unassailable. But a label of 6 is conceivable and would be (marginally) less fussy. And then the possibilities of labels of 5 are by no means exhausted. One could even make a case that the third in line to the Throne, and indeed the second, should have labels of 3 rather than uncles, aunts, great uncles and great aunts who are lower in the line of succession.

The College of Arms would be venturing into uncharted territory, and a future Garter might recommend a fundamental rethink of royal cadency to make it clearer who is in the direct line of succession and who is not.

¤ I know that British Monarchs don't abdicate on grounds of age, but there is always a first time.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Prince George of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 26 Jul 2013, 15:26

You will note that I have created a separate topic for Prince George. The thread for the Duchess should henceforth be used for her alone.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

Jonathan Webster
Posts: 304
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 21:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Jonathan Webster » 26 Jul 2013, 15:56

Chris Green wrote:. One could even make a case that the third in line to the Throne, and indeed the second, should have labels of 3 rather than uncles, aunts, great uncles and great aunts who are lower in the line of succession.


I agree; precedent seems to show the eldest son of the heir apparent has a label of three points, as opposed to all the other monarch's grandchildren, so why not the eldest son of the eldest son (or child, actually) of the heir apparent.

Looking back through history, the 'three points for the heir apparent's eldest son rule was true for:

*Prince Frederick of Wales (grandson of George I and later Frederick, Prince of Wales)
*Prince George of Edinburgh (grandson of George II and later George III)
*George, Duke of York (grandson of Queen Victoria and later George V)
*and now, the Duke of Cambridge.

-so there is precedent. It seems that the three point label is used to show who is in the direct line of succession after the Heir Apparent. Lets not forget, Royal Heraldry goes along a whole set of different rules to the Arms of everyone else.


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests