Royal Wedding

The discussion board for all things concerning heraldry which falls under the jurisdiction of The College of Arms
User avatar
GSelvester
Posts: 84
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 23:01
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby GSelvester » 16 May 2018, 15:35

I find it just a bit strange that the College of Arms has yet to say a word about a coat of arms for Miss Markle considering they were only too happy to reveal the coat of arms granted to Mr. Middleton some ten days prior to the wedding of Prince William and Catherine. I know many details are embargoed until the day (like the title which will be bestowed on them, etc.) but I wonder why there is no word on the arms? My curiosity runs along the lines of thinking that rather than an honorary grant to her non-British father the College will make a grant to Meghan in her own right. She is becoming a British citizen and presumably after the wedding will be a Duchess. So, perhaps this time around they're simply waiting until after the wedding to reveal anything about a coat of arms?

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1337
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 16 May 2018, 16:39

The circumstances are very different to those of the father of the Duchess of Cambridge. We must bear in mind that Ms. Markle is not yet a British Citizen (she will be applying for citizenship on the basis of her spouse’s nationality) so,if, The College of Arms are to grant arms to the Princess to be in her own right, they will be waiting for her to become a British Citizen before doing so. Whilst she will automatically become a Princess the moment she has married the Prince (and probably a Duchess too) she will not automatically become a British Citizen and will be required to undertake the same application process as anyone else all be it something of a formality; this of course means that any grant in preparation will not be "signed off" until her citizenship has been confirmed. The bride to be was Christened and Confirmed on (I believe) the 6th of this month at the specific behest of Her Majesty the Queen (it may be that she was either not Christened, or perhaps not Christened in the Church of England - I leave that to the ecclesiastical experts) so it looks as though the powers that be are going through the motions of placing all their cards in order. We must wait and see what arms are granted after the wedding.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3294
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Chris Green » 16 May 2018, 17:00

Whilst she will automatically become a Princess the moment she has married the Prince ....


I believe that strictly speaking she will not be a Princess, but the wife of a Prince - hence Princess Henry of Wales, Duchess of (Sussex???), not Princess Meghan ...
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 527
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 16 May 2018, 19:49

Chris Green wrote:
Whilst she will automatically become a Princess the moment she has married the Prince ....


I believe that strictly speaking she will not be a Princess, but the wife of a Prince - hence Princess Henry of Wales, Duchess of (Sussex???), not Princess Meghan ...

I think she would be a princess in right of her husband, which is different than a princess in her own right. I don't know what the difference is, besides the style, because being a princess mostly confers social status. Maybe precedence is different?

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 612
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby JMcMillan » 17 May 2018, 03:30

Depending on the sequence of things (i.e., whether the Queen bestows the dukedom before or after the archbishop says "man and wife"), Rachel Meghan Markle will become either HRH Princess Henry of Wales or HRH the Duchess of Sussex, or wherever it turns out to be. Once the peerage is granted it supersedes the courtesy title, so the bizarre "Princess Henry" thing will be short-lived at most. As for what she's called in the press and elsewhere, whatever it is will almost certainly be incorrect. Charles's first wife was never correctly "Princess Diana," but tell that to the adoring masses.

Harry's precedence won't be affected by the dukedom. Royal precedence depends on pecking order in the family, not title. Harry ranks next after his elder brother now and will continue to do so.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3294
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Chris Green » 17 May 2018, 07:05

Harry's precedence won't be affected by the dukedom. Royal precedence depends on pecking order in the family, not title. Harry ranks next after his elder brother now and will continue to do so.


The first part of that statement is quite correct. But, if by precedence you mean position in the line of succession, Prince Henry has not ranked next after his elder brother since the birth of Prince George in 2013. The order of succession at present is:

(1) Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948)
(2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982)
(3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013)
(4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015)
(5) Prince Louis of Cambridge (b. 2018)
(6) Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry) (b. 1984)

Precedence however can mean status as regards placing in a procession or at a formal function. There the situation is rather different, the sovereign's sons precede the sovereign's grandsons and they precede the sovereign's great grandsons. So Prince Henry follows Prince William (as he has done since birth) and precedes Prince George, but both are preceded by Prince Andrew (Duke of York) and Prince Edward (Earl of Wessex).
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1337
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 17 May 2018, 11:49

Chris Green wrote:
Whilst she will automatically become a Princess the moment she has married the Prince ....


I believe that strictly speaking she will not be a Princess, but the wife of a Prince - hence Princess Henry of Wales, Duchess of (Sussex???), not Princess Meghan ...


You said it yourself, she will be Princess Henry of Wales.

We've had this conversation elsewhere - to be pedantic, neither would she be a duchess except in right of her husband however, as it now transpires, we have been informed that the Duchess of Cambridge is recorded on the birth certificates of her children under "occupation" as Princess of the United Kingdom. I don't think that pedantry is useful in these discussions as we all accept that the wife of a Duke becomes a Duchess (as a courtesy) and it is accepted that the wife of a Prince becomes a Princess (as a courtesy) the form of the title (Princess Henry of Wales) is accepted but makes no difference in that all her titles will be courtesy titles; she is nevertheless a Princess (or will be) (although of course once her husband is made a Duke, this title will be used instead of the title Princess Henry of Wales) in exactly the same way as any lady who marries a peer takes upon herself the rank and title of her husband (to avoid further pedantic comment, when she takes on the title of her husband, it is altered to take into account her gender). If we then move forward in the discussion and take the example on the birth certificates of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge where the title of Princess of the United Kingdom is accorded to the Duchess, we must then accept that even after Princess Henry of Wales has taken on the courtesy title of Duchess of ..... she will remain a Princess of the United Kingdom. The entry on the birth certificate(s) must have received Royal approval.

prince-and-princess.jpg


prince-1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 612
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby JMcMillan » 17 May 2018, 15:03

Chris Green wrote:
Harry's precedence won't be affected by the dukedom. Royal precedence depends on pecking order in the family, not title. Harry ranks next after his elder brother now and will continue to do so.


The first part of that statement is quite correct. But, if by precedence you mean position in the line of succession, Prince Henry has not ranked next after his elder brother since the birth of Prince George in 2013.


If I'd meant order of succession, I would have said so. I meant precedence, and I said precedence.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 612
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby JMcMillan » 17 May 2018, 15:20

Martin Goldstraw wrote:You said it yourself, she will be Princess Henry of Wales.


Not once he's Duke of Sussex, or wherever, she won't. The birth certificates you present are proof of this. Meghan will be in exactly the same position as Catherine. She will be a "princess of the United Kingdom" (a dignity but not a title), but her full name, title, and style will "Rachel Meghan, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex," just as her future sister-in-law is now "Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge." Not being "Princess Henry of Wales" doesn't mean she is not a princess of the UK, any more than not being "Princess William of Wales" means that Catherine is not a princess of the UK.

And also as suggested by the birth certificates, Harry will no longer be "Prince Henry of Wales." Along the model of his elder brother's entry on the birth certificates, he will be "His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex" (or wherever). Bearers of substantive titles don't retain their courtesy titles.

Also, strictly speaking, wives' use of their husbands' peerage titles is not "by courtesy." A courtesy title is one accorded to a person, but to which he or she has no legally enforceable right. Under English law, wives of peers have been held to enjoy a legal "life estate" (a property right) in the peerage title. That's why George VI could, with the stroke of a pen, deprive Wallis Simpson of the style of HRH, but could not legally deprive her of the title Duchess of Windsor.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1337
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Royal Wedding

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 17 May 2018, 15:47

JMcMillan wrote:
Not once he's Duke of Sussex, or wherever, she won't.


As I clearly stated:

Martin Goldstraw wrote: (although of course once her husband is made a Duke, this title will be used instead of the title Princess Henry of Wales)


Martin Goldstraw wrote: If we then move forward in the discussion and take the example on the birth certificates of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge where the title of Princess of the United Kingdom is accorded to the Duchess, we must then accept that even after Princess Henry of Wales has taken on the courtesy title of Duchess of ..... she will remain a Princess of the United Kingdom. The entry on the birth certificate(s) must have received Royal approval.


I apologise for not stating extra clearly that once she has taken on the title of Duchess she would not then be known as Princess however, my point was that, even when she becomes Duchess of ..... , she would still be a Princess of the United Kingdom and therefore still be a Princess. Yet more pedantry.

JMcMillan wrote: Also, strictly speaking, wives' use of their husbands' peerage titles is not "by courtesy." A courtesy title is one accorded to a person, but to which he or she has no legally enforceable right. Under English law, wives of peers have been held to enjoy a legal "life estate" (a property right) in the peerage title. That's why George VI could, with the stroke of a pen, deprive Wallis Simpson of the style of HRH, but could not legally deprive her of the title Duchess of Windsor.


I am aware of English law. George VI couldn't deprive the Duchess of Windsor of her title of Duchess because her husband was a Duke and the wives of Dukes have a right (acquired solely because they have married) to be addressed as Duchess and retained after divorce until they marry again. In a simple conversation, we don't need to explain at every stage the basis of the legal right or courtesy when we all know what is meant. We all know that the duchess wasn't simply deprived of the privileged of using HRH, she was denied it. It was never issued in the first place and it is not automatic; the wife of a duke automatically receives recognition as duchess but the new princess/duchess will have to be specifically awarded the dignity of HRH by HM (and it is highly likely that she will be accorded the dignity/rank/title or whatever the pedants want to call it).

I don't have the energy to go through the rest, I never enjoy pedantry so I think I'll just stick to the speculation on when, if and why arms may or may not be granted and look forward to watching the event. I can't be bothered to explain why I said what to whom or what context it was said in. As I said elsewhere in a duplicate of this topic, continual pedantry doesn't make for good, or enjoyable, conversation.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk


Return to “College of Arms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests