In response to this, and many others like it, trying to create something out of nothing:
“I am stil puzzled by this weird c of a – this is not an individual c of a but joined it is also not a conjugal c of a. Strange. The absence of chains on the supporter is very weird.”
I was too tipsy to make sense over here the first time around. No, it is not weird. It is tack af, very shallow and ego-centred.** But no. It’s not formally weird.
Her father did not get a Markle family CoA, so unlike Kate, she did not have an independent family Arms going into this union beforehand. Therefore no separate display for y’all to see. Though there will formally be a separate Sunshine & Chickenfeathers shield granted as her separate arms, it probably won’t be put out there as it’s simply way beyond its time for use. It has no function as she’s married. The impaled CoA is Meghan’s CoA now. As HRH Duchess of Slutsex. Hope I make sense here.
Further, what the Arms do have by way of formalities, is bog standard positining and referencing. Nothing strange.
Let’s have a comparative look shall we:
Will and Kate (impaled):
Hazza and Meg (impaled):
Like I said: bog standard. Nothing formally untoward.
Now what most people seem to be comparing it with is Will and Kate’s conjugal Arms:
…which was granted later and released two years after their marriage (2013). FYI.
Note that it is not Kate’s hind gorged with Will’s coronet that’s chained, it’s the Scottish unicorn. This is a merger of their separate shields supported and labelled by the Royal CoA. An entirely different matter.
And please refrain from comparing Diana’s separate CoA as she had her suo jure Spencer Arms which features a griffin argent gorged and chained to begin with. This is comparing apples & pears.
Heraldry is a complicated af business even when you do know something of it, so it’s only fair that people generally don’t understand when they really haven’t had to pay attention before. But you can rest assured that aside from the absurd silliness [sic!] of it all, this is “legit”. 🙂
**Note/rant:Though I’m sure she thought it was meant as symbolising using “her voice” for others, we all know M’s motivations by now. The bird in conjunction with the quills are a giveaway.There’s nothing that grounds or roots her with substance. It’s all flighty References to something nobody can really substantiate (part-time below-average calligrapher with only one reference ever of any work?); or banal blog writings much of which were written the guy-intern; or is she referencing the total of 2 ½ “essays” she wrote just around the time of breaking that she’s dating Harry?
Either way – there’s nothing substantial about her symbolics. Just what she’d like to project about herself. It’s a PR-coat. Much like everything else about this woman. And there you have it. Maybe that’s why people can’t wrap their heads around her shenanigans; you guys are used to a stayed aristo/royal/British way of emphasising tradition and stability and something of the true self. Then you get this. And the immediate reaction is: “oh surely it can’t be right? Is it fake?” Oh the LOLz. It’s real people. Tacky. But real. Where you were used to a Coat of Arms, you got Bathrobe of Arms. We’re breaking tradition baby! Welcome to Meg’s World.
Thank you so much for submitting this! I love it when anons are more articulate than I am. I particularly love this part:
And there you have it. Maybe that’s why people can’t wrap their heads around her shenanigans; you guys are used to a stayed aristo/royal/British way of emphasising tradition and stability and something of the true self. Then you get this. And the immediate reaction is: “oh surely it can’t be right? Is it fake?” Oh the LOLz. It’s real people. Tacky. But real. Where you were used to a Coat of Arms, you got Bathrobe of Arms. We’re breaking tradition baby! Welcome to Meg’s World.
I love the “Bathrobe of Arms,” LOLOLOLOLOL.
But I’m going to focus on this quote: "You guys are used to a staid aristo/royal.British way of emphasizing tradition and stability and something of the true self. Then you get this.” <=== This is why I am revising Hillary Mantel’s “empty chairs” quote.
And Andrew Morton’s chatter about how the monarchy is all just costumes and crap anyway, so Meghan’s perfect for it.
She really is making it all look like a Hollywood production (the theatrical wedding, the sashay at the garden party). and, yes, there is an element of theatricality to the BRF, but, as you say, there is supposed to be a core of tradition and truth to it. What will be the effect of all of this Hollywood crapola being injected into the institution.
Right now, the conventional wisdom among the royal reporters, etc… is that this is fantastic because it “modernizes” the monarchy and expands its reach, but I don’t think that will be the case.
I think what will happen is that, as Meghan moves through the royal sphere, everything will start to look faker and faker and Hollywood-y, and it’s going to be interesting to see what effect this has. They are already dealing with a decrease in UK viewers. What’s next?
I think it’s interesting that the Cambridge response is to up the real-ness of their own family. Will is doing more “normal” stuff with friends and family, and becoming more of a diplomat. Kate is recycling like crazy and writing letters about her family life.
Thanks for sending this in, You’re right, the CoA perfectly illustrates what we are seeing, particularly in the “impaled” format, where it is contrasted with Harry’s own über-traditional set of arms.
House of Brat 