Dr Samuel Johnson made the irritating remark that “No knowledge is useless, with the exception of heraldry”. How wrong he was! It has been a way of identifying all manner of things for over 900 years. A tabard over armour with a crest on the helmet were ways of showing who was who in battle, just as a uniform relates to a specific regiment. A coat of arms on a building shows the family that lives or lived there. 

And yet so often people think a coat of arms is just a stylish illustration, and that it does not matter if it is right or wrong. The makers of The Crown had a scene in which Lord Mountbatten wrote a letter on paper with what purported to be his full coat of arms at the top. To the trained eye, this was instantly recognisable as the Churchill/Marlborough arms. They could have got that right.

If the intricacies of heraldry mystify the man on the street, they also seem to have mystified the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who unveiled a new website complete with a coat of arms this week. In fact, they should not have been displaying any arms at all, since they were firmly told that they were not to exploit their royal connections in promoting their new lives (a vain hope).

A royal coat of arms on the website’s opening page contravenes that in every way. Their office should have been directed to Halsbury’s Laws of England (1932), which states that the Royal Arms must not be used “in connection with any business, trade, calling, or profession in such a manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that he is authorised so to do…” 

But if they insist on using this coat of arms, they should at least get the arms right, even if this requires another meeting with the heralds at the College of Arms in Queen Victoria Street, who act on behalf of the Crown in these matters.

Perhaps significantly, the arms they display are actually Meghan’s, which were granted to her when she was still an HRH. These were designed by Thomas Woodcock, when he was Garter King of Arms, and were announced to the world on May 25 2018, a few days after the wedding. 

In this instance, however, it would have been better if they had used a joint coat of arms, called ‘conjugal’ (his and hers, side by side), such as the present Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh use on their writing paper. With a conjugal coat of arms the two coats are placed side by side – so, the whole shield of his is next to the whole shield of hers.  

But the right to such a coat of arms has not been granted to them. Nor will it be. They could have used Prince Harry’s coat of arms. Instead, Meghan is dominant.

The problem is that her arms are out of date. The left-hand side, which features Prince Harry’s coat of arms, has five-point labels (the white emblem around the neck of the lion and at the top of the shield). That was correct in 2018 as he was then the grandson of the Sovereign. He is now the son of the Sovereign and technically these should be re-adjusted to three-point labels. 

Members of the Royal family such as Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward all have three-point labels. Grandchildren of Sovereigns such as the present Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra have labels with five points. It is not that hard to get right. These members of the Royal family are all grandchildren of George V.

Then the coronet is wrong. The one shown here is correct for sons and daughters of the Heir Apparent, so it was fine in 2018, but not any more. It shows one cross patée, two fleurs de lys and two strawberry leaves. 

Now it should be three crosses patée and two fleurs de lys (for the son of a Sovereign).

To confuse the reader even further, there is another royal coronet for the grandchildren of the Sovereign, as Harry’s coat of arms suggests he still is. This alternative coronet could theoretically be used by Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, should they be assigned coats of arms one day, and has three crosses patée and two strawberry leaves. 

These appear above the shields in the coats of arms of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra. They are entitled to them for life. At the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, the Earl of Harewood (son of Princess Mary, and therefore a grandson of George V) was told he could not wear his father’s Earl coronet. He had to have the royal grandson one. He was not pleased. He had to fork out. 

If heraldry is to be used, it is only right and proper that it should be done correctly. This article will inspire reams of comments along the lines of “Who cares? – this is the 21^st century” etc. But the Sussexes are using their arms to advertise their podcast, so it is relevant. 

When Camilla was made a Lady of the Garter in 2022, she was assigned a banner “impaling” (or halving) her arms with those of the Prince of Wales. The banner was hung in St George’s Chapel in June that year. It was obsolete by September, when Queen Elizabeth II died. 

She now has a new banner with her arms impaled alongside the King’s – no labels, nor is there an escutcheon “of the arms of the Principality of Wales”.  

Coats of arms don’t always get updated so quickly – sometimes frugality wins out. When Princess Marina, widow of Prince George, Duke of Kent, died in 1968, there was a lot of her writing paper left over. It made sense for her younger son, Prince Michael, to use it since he had an M like her, but technically it was the wrong coronet. Not many will have noticed. Only when it ran out, was it redesigned. 

Heraldry can be great fun. Heralds seek to relate to the person, and they love puns. Sometimes it is easy to work them out: the arms of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother contained bows and lions – her maiden name being Bowes-Lyon. Meghan’s arms were inspired by the things she loves, and Woodcock said: “The Duchess of Sussex took a great interest in the design.” 

Her shield has a blue background, evidently reflecting the Pacific Ocean off California, and two golden rays to represent the sunshine of her “home” state. The three quills are to denote “communication and the power of words”. As is customary, the shield sits on some grass. Hers contains “golden poppies, California’s state flower, and wintersweet, which grows at Kensington Palace,” where, of course, the Sussexes lived when they got married. Her supporter is a songbird with wings elevated as if flying and an open beak, which, with the quills on the shield, represents the power of communication.

If we were to treat the redesign of this coat of arms to represent the Sussexes in their Californian incarnation as flippantly as they have, then we have some alternative suggestions for them. Perhaps the quills could be replaced by javelins, like the ones they hurl at the Royal family from time to time? The songbird already looks predatory enough, but perhaps the Greek goddess, Apate, the goddess of deceit, might be a more appropriate supporter? 

*The Sussexes have declined to comment 

To View the Original Article CLICK HERE