Arms of Prince George of Cambridge

[Louis Epstein]

So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

They have a few years to sort it out. They don't usually get around to it
until the child reaches an age of reason.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Andrew Chaplin

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

They have a few years to sort it out. They don't usually get around to it
until the child reaches an age of reason.

The sons of the Prince of Wales got theirs at age 18,and the Queen would
have to reach her 106th year for Prince George to be in his current
heraldic situation at that time.As it is,without a grant to him,
I suppose what would be imputed would be a plain three-pointed label
across his father's charged three-pointed label.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[The Chief]

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

You can see his arms here:
Loading Image...

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

although of course, Prince George of Cambridge, not being descended in the Male line from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or any member of it (being patrilineally a scion of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glucksburg), wouldn't be able to bear those Arms under any circumstances.

[w***@hotmail.com]

meHa ha ha ha ha ha. 

although of course, Prince George of Cambridge, not being descended in the Male line from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or any member of it (being patrilineally a scion of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg) wouldn't be able to bear those Arms under any circumstances.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
meHa ha ha ha ha ha. 
although of course, Prince George of Cambridge, not being descended in the Male line from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or any member of it (being patrilineally a scion of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg) wouldn't be able to bear those Arms under any circumstances.

Standards have gone to heck these days, don't you know...

But little George Battenberg might prefer these arms anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Henry_of_Battenberg.svg

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Not really, because he isn't a male-descendant of the Battenburg/Mountbatten family either-Prince Philip merely adopted that name for the purposes of naturalisation and it did not affect his membership of the House of Oldenburg nor (debatably) his children between 1948 and 1952 -think the Marquess of Milford Haven might have some choice words to say about someone usurping his Arms.

In the imaginary, make believe world in which the Queen was not the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and his issue merely armigerous private citizens, he would just bear the Arms of his great-grandfather, differenced by a label of seven points.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Not really, because he isn't a male-descendant of the Battenburg/Mountbatten family either-Prince Philip merely adopted that name for the purposes of naturalisation and it did not affect his membership of the House of Oldenburg nor (debatably) his children between 1948 and 1952 -think the Marquess of Milford Haven might have some choice words to say about someone usurping his Arms.
In the imaginary, make believe world in which the Queen was not the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and his issue merely armigerous private citizens, he would just bear the Arms of his great-grandfather, differenced by a label of seven points.

I always assumed that old Phil made a "name and arms" type assumption, but maybe not. In any case, as Betty is an heraldic heiress, young George would indeed bear the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arms.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Only she's not an heraldic heiress, as the Arms granted to her father in 1920 ceased to be used when he became King. And even were they not or his family not been royal, she still wouldn't be an heraldic heiress as the Arms of children of the British monarch are not inheritable (which would make the Arms granted to her as a Princess not inheritable either.), and at any rate the male-line descent of Prince Albert is not extinct and is extant in the lines of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Gloucester and Kent. That and the fact that the Arms of the British monarch are Arms of Dominion and are not inheritable.

The Duke of Edinburgh bore the Royal Arms of Greece (undifferenced) as an agnate of the Greek Royal family (which does not use marks of difference), in 1947 on his naturalisation, marriage and elevation to the peerage, he was granted the use of the same Arms but with the Arms of his great-grandmother, Princess Alice, in dexter chief. In 1949 he was granted new Arms, the Arms he currently bears.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Only she's not an heraldic heiress, as the Arms granted to her father in 1920 ceased to be used when he became King. And even were they not or his family not been royal, she still wouldn't be an heraldic heiress as the Arms of children of the British monarch are not inheritable (which would make the Arms granted to her as a Princess not inheritable either.), and at any rate the male-line descent of Prince Albert is not extinct and is extant in the lines of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Gloucester and Kent. That and the fact that the Arms of the British monarch are Arms of Dominion and are not inheritable.
The Duke of Edinburgh bore the Royal Arms of Greece (undifferenced) as an agnate of the Greek Royal family (which does not use marks of difference), in 1947 on his naturalisation, marriage and elevation to the peerage, he was granted the use of the same Arms but with the Arms of his great-grandmother, Princess Alice, in dexter chief. In 1949 he was granted new Arms, the Arms he currently bears.

You have misunderstood - I am saying that Betty is an heraldic heiress with regard to her paternal arms, those of Saze-Coburg-und-Gotha!

Regards,
The Chief

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Arms of children of the British monarch are not inheritable

Where did you get that from?

At least there are many achievements quartering the arms of children of
medieval English sovereigns, including some issued under the signature
of a king of arms or two.

And I am aware that, appearances to the contrary, only the sovereign can
display the English sovereign's arms and absolutely noone can inherit
them. However the College does seem to allow people to inherit
(quarter) the arms of non-English sovereigns.

[w***@hotmail.com]

She isn't an heraldic heiress in regards of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms either, as there are plenty of male agnates of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha alive. She would only be an heraldic heiress if the male descent of the original Armiger of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms, her great-great-great grandfather, the Sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Ernst I, had become extinct, which it hasn't, and the male descent of his brothers Ferdinand and King Leopold I of the Belgians, who bore the same Arms, isn't extinct either-the Royal Houses of Belgium and Bulgaria are still very much extant. And at any rate, the Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, like the British Royal Arms, are (or at any rate were) Arms of Dominion, and Arms of Dominion do not follow the standard rules of heraldry that the Arms of everyone else do. That and Prince Albert was granted a new coat of Arms in right of the United Kingdom when he was naturalised as a British subject and married Queen Victoria so if there are any Arms that the Queen would inherit under the circumstances in this make-believe scenario world you live in, it would be those ones, not the Sovereign Arms of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
She isn't an heraldic heiress in regards of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms either, as there are plenty of male agnates of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha alive. She would only be an heraldic heiress if the male descent of the original Armiger of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms, her great-great-great grandfather, the Sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Ernst I, had become extinct, which it hasn't, and the male descent of his brothers Ferdinand and King Leopold I of the Belgians, who bore the same Arms, isn't extinct either-the Royal Houses of Belgium and Bulgaria are still very much extant. And at any rate, the Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, like the British Royal Arms, are (or at any rate were) Arms of Dominion, and Arms of Dominion do not follow the standard rules of heraldry that the Arms of everyone else do. That and Prince Albert was granted a new coat of Arms in right of the United Kingdom when he was naturalised as a British subject and married Queen Victoria so if there are any Arms that the Queen would inherit under the circumstances in this make-believe scenario world you live in, it would be those ones, not the Sovereign Arms of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Wrong. All that matters is that she has no brothers. Betty is consequently the heraldic heiress of her father's Saxe-Coburge-und-Gotha arms.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

But George VI was not entitled to bear any arms until he was granted them by his father, and when he was they were a differenced version of the British Royal Arms that was technically a new grant, the Arms of which he ceased to bear the second he became King. A sovereign's daughter cannot be an heraldic heiress (as the Arms of a sovereign's daughters are not automatically hereditary), and even if Prince Albert had not married Queen Victoria and the Queen was just a private citizen of the UK who was descended from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in the male line, she would have borne a differenced version of the Arms granted to Prince Albert when he became naturalised as a British subject, and not the Ducal Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

An heraldic heiress is only an heraldic heiress if her father is granted Arms (the Arms George VI was originally granted as a British subject ceased to be used the second he became King), and if he dies with no surviving sons or male-line descendants of his sons. So she couldn't be a heraldic heiress to either George VI, Prince Albert or Ernst I of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because:

i.the Arms granted to George VI as Prince in 1920 were not hereditable.
ii.Male-line descendants of Ernst I of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and his father Franz, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld are still extant.
iii. Male line descendants of Prince Albert are still extant.
iv. The Queen has never been a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, persuant to both the 1917 Order-in-council creating the House of Windsor, or the 1918 House law of them House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which explicitly excluded those from membership in the House who had borne Arms against the German Empire-seeing as George VI served in the British Navy during World War I, that would exclude him and his issue.
v. The fact that the Queen is actually, y'know, the Queen, she actually, really reigns over the United Kingdom and does not inhibit some make-believe reality that you clearly do, the only Arms she is now entitled to bear are the Royal Arms.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
But George VI was not entitled to bear any arms until he was granted them by his father, and when he was they were a differenced version of the British Royal Arms that was technically a new grant, the Arms of which he ceased to bear the second he became King. A sovereign's daughter cannot be an heraldic heiress (as the Arms of a sovereign's daughters are not automatically hereditary), and even if Prince Albert had not married Queen Victoria and the Queen was just a private citizen of the UK who was descended from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in the male line, she would have borne a differenced version of the Arms granted to Prince Albert when he became naturalised as a British subject, and not the Ducal Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
i.the Arms granted to George VI as Prince in 1920 were not hereditable.
ii.Male-line descendants of Ernst I of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and his father Franz, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld are still extant.
iii. Male line descendants of Prince Albert are still extant.
iv. The Queen has never been a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, persuant to both the 1917 Order-in-council creating the House of Windsor, or the 1918 House law of them House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which explicitly excluded those from membership in the House who had borne Arms against the German Empire-seeing as George VI served in the British Navy during World War I, that would exclude him and his issue.
v. The fact that the Queen is actually, y'know, the Queen, she actually, really reigns over the United Kingdom and does not inhibit some make-believe reality that you clearly do, the only Arms she is now entitled to bear are the Royal Arms.

To paraphrase Maggie: No, no, no!
Betty and her brood have inherited the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha arms via the normal laws of arms. Nothing special involved at all.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

-Arms of Dominion do not follow the 'normal law of Arms', as you well know. Please stop trolling.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
-Arms of Dominion do not follow the 'normal law of Arms', as you well know. Please stop trolling.

We are not talking of the British "royal" arms.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

The Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are also Arms of Dominion and not subject to the 'normal law of arms'. The Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was as much a sovereign state as the United Kingdom is. Also, a heraldic heiress is only an heraldic heiress if all the male descendants of the original armiger are dead. The 'original Armiger' is either Prince Albert, or his father, Duke Ernst I, of which the male line of either is not extinct.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
The Arms of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are also Arms of Dominion and not subject to the 'normal law of arms'. The Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was as much a sovereign state as the United Kingdom is. Also, a heraldic heiress is only an heraldic heiress if all the male descendants of the original armiger are dead. The 'original Armiger' is either Prince Albert, or his father, Duke Ernst I, of which the male line of either is not extinct.

The duchy of Saxe-Coburg is no more; the Saxe-Coburg arms are normal family arms since 1918.
And you still don't properly understand the concept of an heraldic heiress.
It may help you to take a look at the COA definition at
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/resources/the-law-of-arms

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

"Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs"-but male heirs to Prince Albert are extant.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
"Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs"-but male heirs to Prince Albert are extant.

This is getting tiresome. Read on past the first sentence.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

If I am granted Arms, and I have two sons, and the eldest has only daughters, and the youngest only sons, then the daughters of my elder son are not heraldic heiresses to my arms because there are still male agnates of my line left (my grandsons through my younger son). If the line from my younger son becomes extinct, then they become heraldic heiresses. Read the section in 'Boutell's Heraldry' as well as 'An Heraldic Alphabet' on the subject of who exactly is an heraldic heiress. Therefore, as the line of the original Armiger of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms is not extinct, she is not an heraldic heiress.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
If I am granted Arms, and I have two sons, and the eldest has only daughters, and the youngest only sons, then the daughters of my elder son are not heraldic heiresses to my arms because there are still male agnates of my line left (my grandsons through my younger son). If the line from my younger son becomes extinct, then they become heraldic heiresses. Read the section in 'Boutell's Heraldry' as well as 'An Heraldic Alphabet' on the subject of who exactly is an heraldic heiress. Therefore, as the line of the original Armiger of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Arms is not extinct, she is not an heraldic heiress.

I just looked at your two references. The Heraldic Alphabet directly supports my position, and contradicts yours. There are many editions of Boutell - mine is silent on the subject. Of course, there is also the COA "law of arms" write up which I linked to earlier, which clearly supports my position, and much other material out there. It is abundantly clear that you are simply wrong on this.

Regards,
The Chief

[w***@hotmail.com]

Right. But that her children are not forced to quarter her Arms, and can bear the Arms of their father, which, depending on which fantasy, make-believe scenario we are talking about, would be either the Arms currently borne by the Duke of Edinburgh, or the Arms he bore from 1947 to 1949, or the Royal Arms of Greece, or the Royal Arms of Denmark as borne before 1912, or the Ducal Arms of the Schleswig-Holstein branches of the House of Oldenburg; or the original Arms of the House of Oldenburg; 'Or, two Bars Gules.' Which make-believe scenario are we referring to? A man need not necessarily bear all the quarterings he is entitled to.

Whilst we're on the subject of people bearing Arms that they are not entitled to and which they would probably not bear unless a set of extremely unlikely circumstances were to( happen, what Arms would His Excellency President Michael D. Higgins, current President of Ireland be if the constitution of Ireland as it stands was altered to make Eire a monarchy with him as King? How would he bear the Arms and how would his family members bear the Irish Royal Arms?

[w***@hotmail.com]

And at any rate, under the 'normal law of arms' her 'brood' would bear the Arms of their father.

[The Chief]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
And at any rate, under the 'normal law of arms' her 'brood' would bear the Arms of their father.

... quartered with their mother's arms as an heraldic heiress. [Question - does Betty have to join the choir invisible for them to quarter her arms, or is this permissible while she is still alive?]

Regards,
The Chief

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by The Chief
Betty and her brood have inherited the Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha arms via
the normal laws of arms. Nothing special involved at all.

Where does this particular normal law of arms appear? Us English people
don't even know the laws of arms in our own country, never mind any
other one.

One thing that I would take into account is the fact that heraldry is
different in different provinces and sovereignties. In some countries
at least, a person may, more or less, only bear arms allowed them by the
heraldic authority of that country. If you are a citizen of Ruritania,
you bear your Ruritanian arms while in Ruritania. If you choose to more
to another heraldic zone, you ought to get permission to use your
Ruritanean arms in that zone. Or you get/find/assume arms for that zone
and then use those.

The corollary to this issue is whether people who live in different
sovereignties can bear the same arms without infringing the requirement
of uniqueness.

[w***@hotmail.com]

Also @ Tim; Arms of the children of the British Sovereign are certainly not hereditary: the Arms granted to the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, Princess Anne, and the Earl of Wessex are not born in any differenced way by their children, and the children of the current Queen's sons have been granted Arms in their own right as a matter of course, and the children of Princess Anne bear the Arms of their father's family, suitably differenced. Yes, there are examples of junior members of the Royal family (usually the children of daughters of the Sovereign) quartering the Arms of their mother 1&4 with those of their father 2&3, but this was only ever done with a Royal Warrant, and did not happen automatically as with the Arms of non-royals. To quote John P. Brooke-Little in 'Boutell's Heraldry', page 222:

"Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty, and cannot be borne indifferenced by any person except the Sovereign. In the case of the Sovereign's daughters, it was formerly held to be sufficient distinction for them to bear their parent's arms on a lozenge, or impaled with their husband's arms, but they now bear distinctive labels. The Royal Arms may not be quartered without some difference."

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Arms of the children of the British Sovereign are certainly not

But they were equally certainly treated as such by the practice of
quartering their (suitably differenced) arms in ancient achievements.
Such achievements have been signed off by Kings of Arms, certainly as
late as 1927, so they have to be regarded as expressing their view of
the rules of their game of heraldry. Quarterings are undoubtedly
inherited.

Or have you seen something different?

It might be that the rules of the British sovereign are not the same as
the rules of the English heralds. (That would be a topic for a good
constitutional discussion.)

[w***@hotmail.com]

@Tim, my point is that each of the differenced Arms granted to a member of the Royal family, whether quartered or not, are in theory new grants of Arms rather than Arms that are inherited in the 'normal' way-they just happen to be differenced versions of the Royal Arms and there is nothing that says they have to be that. As the Royal Arms are simultaneously the Arms of the monarch and the National Arms, and thus marks of public authority, Arms borne by people descended from the Sovereign can only be quartered with the Sovereign's authority, and if the Sovereign doesn't grant the Royal warrant or the person of Royal descent doesn't bother asking the permission of the monarch, then they are not allowed to quarter the Royal Arms-which is precisely why the late Earl of Harewood-son of the daughter of George V, only bore his father's Arms and did not quarter them with those of his mother and it is also why the children of Princess Anne only bear differenced versions of their father's Arms and do not quarter them with those of their mother. The fact the Arms of the Sovereign's children (as well as the eldest son of the Heir Apparent) are not hereditary is precisely why the Queen issued a Royal Warrant in 1975 stating specifically that the Arms of the Sovereign's grandchildren in the male line-with the exception of the eldest son of the Heir Apparent (though the actual wording of the Warrant says 'eldest son of the Prince of Wales), are hereditary and are borne with the same cadency marks as the Arms of non-royal people-precisely because they weren't automatically hereditary before. Which means the male-line granddaughters of the Sovereign would be heraldic heiresses in right of the Arms granted to them, but not the Sovereign's daughters. Please see the section on 'cadency' in Ottfried Neubecker's 'Heraldry, signs symbols and meanings' and the section on 'British Royal Cadency' at heraldica.org.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
my point is that each of the differenced Arms granted to a
member of the Royal family, whether quartered or not, are in theory
new grants of Arms rather than Arms that are inherited in the 'normal'
way-they just happen to be differenced versions of the Royal Arms and
there is nothing that says they have to be that. As the Royal Arms are
simultaneously the Arms of the monarch and the National Arms, and thus
marks of public authority, Arms borne by people descended from the
Sovereign can only be quartered with the Sovereign's authority, and if
the Sovereign doesn't grant the Royal warrant or the person of Royal
descent doesn't bother asking the permission of the monarch, then they
are not allowed to quarter the Royal Arms-which is precisely why the
late Earl of Harewood-son of the daughter of George V, only bore his
father's Arms and did not quarter them with those of his mother and it
is also why the children of Princess Anne only bear differenced
versions of their father's Arms and do not quarter them with those of
their mother.

Are you sure?

I think that the inheritance only applies to male lines or to
descendants of heiresses and neither Princess Mary nor Princess Anne
were or are heiresses.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
The fact the Arms of the Sovereign's children (as well
as the eldest son of the Heir Apparent) are not hereditary is
precisely why the Queen issued a Royal Warrant in 1975 stating
specifically that the Arms of the Sovereign's grandchildren in the
male line-with the exception of the eldest son of the Heir Apparent
(though the actual wording of the Warrant says 'eldest son of the
Prince of Wales), are hereditary and are borne with the same cadency
marks as the Arms of non-royal people-precisely because they weren't
automatically hereditary before.

At last I found the text of this warrant and I do not quite see any
assertion that such arms were not heritable. Instead is makes it clear
that 'henceforth' they are to be heritable.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Which means the male-line granddaughters of the Sovereign would be
heraldic heiresses in right of the Arms granted to them, but not the
Sovereign's daughters.

I do not follow that assertion. The text of the Warrant does refer to
the laws of arms, which raises the usual question of what they might be
and leaves us wondering what this Warrant is actually saying.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Please see the section on 'cadency' in Ottfried Neubecker's 'Heraldry,
signs symbols and meanings' and the section on 'British Royal Cadency'
at heraldica.org.

I don't think these are relevant as they are not source documents.

Finally it would help if you, whoever you are, quoted what text and from
whom to which you are replying. Not to do so means that the readers may
ignore this discussion as unintelligible.

[w***@hotmail.com]

In England, the College of Arms has historically not recognised Arms granted by a foreign sovereign (whether that sovereign be a republic or a monarch) to a British subject as valid in its jurisdiction unless allowed by Royal Warrant,
which is why for example when John Smith (he of Pocohontas fame) was knighted and granted Arms by the Prince of Transylvania, he had to obtain a royal licence to use those Arms in England. So if I were to say, register Arms with the Bureau of Heraldry in South Africa, those Arms would be valid for use in and in right of South Africa, but they would not be viewed as automatically valid by the College of Arms, as Arms granted by the Bureau of Heraldry are not a form of honour, whereas the College takes the view that the Arms granted by it are (I believe the viewpoint as regards 'foreign' arms of the Court of the Lord Lyon is somewhat different, but I will have to look that up. This is just as it did not (or rather the monarch did not) recognise titles of nobility granted by foreign sovereigns (which is why Horatio Nelson had to apply for a royal warrant to use his title of 'Duke of Bronte' granted by the King of Sicily) the College of Arms used to keep a register of 'foreign' arms it recognised as valid, but I do not think this is any longer the case. To quote Elizabeth I, on hearing one of her subjects was going to be ennobled by the King of France and granted Arms, refused to grant permission, stating she did not want 'one of her flock branded with another's mark'.

I will find the page number and quote for Neubecker. He was certainly very clear about that point. It is also why the children of Princess Beatrice, daughter of Queen Victoria, and the children of the Duke and Duchess of Teck, the Duchess of Teck being a male-line granddaughter of King George III, had to obtain a Royal warrant to quarter the Arms of their mothers-precisely because their mother's Arms were differenced versions of the Royal Arms.

As regards the 1975 warrant, surely that shows that if a Royal warrant was needed making those arms hereditary, they must not have been hereditary prior to the issuing of that warrant.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
not hereditary: the Arms granted to the Prince of Wales, the Duke of
York, Princess Anne, and the Earl of Wessex are not born in any
differenced way by their children, and the children of the current
Queen's sons have been granted Arms in their own right as a matter of
course, and the children of Princess Anne bear the Arms of their
father's family, suitably differenced. Yes, there are examples of
junior members of the Royal family (usually the children of daughters of
the Sovereign) quartering the Arms of their mother 1&4 with those of
their father 2&3, but this was only ever done with a Royal Warrant, and
did not happen automatically as with the Arms of non-royals.

The
triple-crested,quadruple-mottoed,grand-quartered,surmounted-inescutcheoned
armorial bearings of the Duke of Fife include the differenced Royal Arms
of the late Princess Royal Duchess of Fife in the second grand-quarter,
but the Earls of Harewood ignore their Princess Royal ancestor.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
"Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and
office of royalty, and cannot be borne indifferenced by any person
except the Sovereign. In the case of the Sovereign's daughters, it was
formerly held to be sufficient distinction for them to bear their
parent's arms on a lozenge, or impaled with their husband's arms, but
they now bear distinctive labels. The Royal Arms may not be quartered
without some difference."

I understand some descendants of Thomas of Brotherton came to grief over
this...the current arms of the Lords Mowbray,Segrave,& Stourton include
the arms of England differenced by a plain three-pointed label,though of
course Thomas was not the eldest son.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[w***@hotmail.com]

Also, what Arms of foreign monarchs are allowed to be quartered in Arms granted by the College of Arms? I suppose there is the Arms of the Battenburgs/Mountbattens and the Arms of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, and the Tecks/Cambridges as regards the Arms of the Kingdom of Wurttemburg, but these were morganatic branches of these Houses, and as such bore differenced versions of these Arms. There is also the Arms of the present Duke of Edinburgh, Prince George of Denmark and Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and his uncle Prince (later King) Leopold, but none of these were borne in any undifferenced way, and certainly not without a Royal Warrant.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Also, what Arms of foreign monarchs are allowed to be quartered in
Arms granted by the College of Arms?

Assuming that an achievement done by the heralds illustrates allowable
quarterings, I have asked on this group before if anyone can account for
the practice of allowing armorial heiress descendants of Edmund of
Langley and Isabel of Castile to quarter the undifferenced arms of
Castile and Leon.

Noone came up with any explanation of this practice of using
undifferenced sovereign's arms. The only thing I can think of is that
Castile and Leon is not part of the heraldic province of England, so the
rules about not quartering sovereign arms do not apply in England for
those who are not sovereigns of England.

Can anyone think of any better explanation? (Other than that the
English heralds have this bit of their game different from their
sovereign's, aka wrong.)

[Derek Howard]

Post by The Chief
I always assumed that old Phil made a "name and arms" type assumption, but maybe not. In any case, as Betty is an heraldic heiress, young George would indeed bear the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arms.

Names and arms are not assumed, for the arms part to be included surely it is a matter of obtaining a Royal licence.

Philip Mountbatten's Naturalisation Certificate AZ24063 was issued 25 February 1947 (TNA HO 334/174/24063). Not sure as to the date he adopted the name but the marriage files in TNA have opening dates from that January.

Derek Howard

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by The Chief
I always assumed that old Phil made a "name and arms" type assumption, but maybe not. In any case, as Betty is an heraldic heiress, young George would indeed bear the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arms.

Names and arms are not assumed, for the arms part to be included surely it is a matter of obtaining a Royal licence.
Philip Mountbatten's Naturalisation Certificate AZ24063 was issued 25
February 1947 (TNA HO 334/174/24063). Not sure as to the date he adopted
the name but the marriage files in TNA have opening dates from that
January.

Does the subsequent court ruling in favor of Ernst August of Hannover
that established the Sophia Naturalization Act rendered such
naturalization unnecessary have any relevant heraldic consequences?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Charles von Hamm]

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

Sadly, we won't know until there is a grant. But, imagining for a moment that HM the Queen will grant George of Cambridge arms before his 18th birthday, I would guess that he would bear a three-point label with the center point charged, perhaps with an acorn gules.

It wouldn't be a seven-point label, in my opinion, because the Duke of Cambridge does not bear a five-point label. Since George is in the direct line, having a three-point label means his arms would not need to change until he becomes heir apparent or king himself. Currently, he is an "heir eventual".

As for coronet, who knows. Maybe the coronet for the children of the heir apparent also be borne by the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent.

George's potential siblings could possibly bear labels of seven points in the current reign, if granted, for the same reasons Henry of Wales had a label of five points (he is not in direct line).

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Charles von Hamm

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

Sadly, we won't know until there is a grant. But, imagining for a
moment that HM the Queen will grant George of Cambridge arms before
his 18th birthday, I would guess that he would bear a three-point
label with the center point charged, perhaps with an acorn gules.
It wouldn't be a seven-point label, in my opinion, because the Duke of
Cambridge does not bear a five-point label. Since George is in the
direct line, having a three-point label means his arms would not need
to change until he becomes heir apparent or king himself. Currently,
he is an "heir eventual".
As for coronet, who knows. Maybe the coronet for the children of the
heir apparent also be borne by the children of the heir apparent's
heir apparent.
George's potential siblings could possibly bear labels of seven points
in the current reign, if granted, for the same reasons Henry of Wales
had a label of five points (he is not in direct line).

I wonder who makes the decisions on royal heraldry?

It has its own set of rules and practices and a bit of decision making,
so someone must be trusted with doing the groundwork. Whom?

And, as with the rest of English and Welsh heraldry, is there any
publication of any of the rules and precedents?

[o***@gmail.com]

Well, technically, there aren't any rules, it's just at the whim of the sovereign and subject to alteration (for example, replacing second labels for grandchildren of the sovereign with labels of five points, getting rid of the Saxon inescutcheon in 1917, the adoption of an inescutcheon of Wales for the Prince of Wales, and so on), and though there are obvious patterns (3-point labels for children of the sovereign, 5-point labels for male-line grandchildren), it is not set in stone and Royal family members thus granted Arms aren't forced to bear Arms in this way -the Second Duke of Connaught, a male-line great-grandson of Queen Victoria certainly didn't, and every Coat of Arms granted to children or grandchildren of the British sovereign is in theory a new grant and perfectly able to be granted in whatever form the Sovereign (or rather, the College of Arms acting on her authority) desires-it just happens they generally follow this pattern.

[o***@gmail.com]

Well, technically, there aren't any rules, it's just at the whim of the sovereign and subject to alteration (for example, replacing second labels for grandchildren of the sovereign with labels of five points, getting rid of the Saxon inescutcheon in 1917, the adoption of an inescutcheon of Wales for the Prince of Wales, and so on), and though there are obvious patterns (3-point labels for children of the sovereign, 5-point labels for male-line grandchildren), it is not set in stone and Royal family members thus granted Arms aren't forced to bear Arms in this way -the Second Duke of Connaught, a male-line great-grandson of Queen Victoria certainly didn't, and every Coat of Arms granted to children or grandchildren of the British sovereign is in theory a new grant and perfectly able to be granted in whatever form the Sovereign (or rather, the College of Arms acting on her authority) desires-it just happens they generally follow this pattern.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Charles von Hamm

Post by Louis Epstein
So what would the armorial bearings of the newborn heir-expectant to the
British Throne be?
A seven-pointed label on the UK arms,a five-point label with the center
point charged as on that of his father's three-point label,or...?
There does not appear to be a coronet allotted to the heir apparent of
the eldest son of the Heir Apparent.

Sadly, we won't know until there is a grant. But, imagining for a moment that HM the Queen will grant George of Cambridge arms before his 18th birthday, I would guess that he would bear a three-point label with the center point charged, perhaps with an acorn gules.
It wouldn't be a seven-point label, in my opinion, because the Duke of Cambridge does not bear a five-point label. Since George is in the direct line, having a three-point label means his arms would not need to change until he becomes heir apparent or king himself. Currently, he is an "heir eventual".
As for coronet, who knows. Maybe the coronet for the children of the
heir apparent also be borne by the children of the heir apparent's heir
apparent.

As the eldest son of the heir apparent is entitled to the coronet of
a younger son of the sovereign,you mean the coronet of the other children
of the heir apparent would be used for the eldest son's son?

Post by Charles von Hamm
George's potential siblings could possibly bear labels of seven points
in the current reign, if granted, for the same reasons Henry of Wales
had a label of five points (he is not in direct line).

Or possibly also five.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Charles von Hamm]

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Charles von Hamm
As for coronet, who knows. Maybe the coronet for the children of the
heir apparent also be borne by the children of the heir apparent's heir
apparent.

As the eldest son of the heir apparent is entitled to the coronet of
a younger son of the sovereign,you mean the coronet of the other children
of the heir apparent would be used for the eldest son's son?

The coronets are different.

Children of the sovereign: four crosses pattée and four fleurs de lys alternating. The heir apparent bears the same but with one arch (or two half-arches). The sovereign bears this configuration with two arches (or four half-arches). The sovereign and heir apparent have jeweled coronets/crowns and all others are chased as if jeweled.

Children of the heir apparent: two crosses pattée, four fleurs de lys, and two strawberry leaves. This is the coronet the Duke of Cambridge and his brother both bear.

Children of sons (not the heir apparent) of the sovereign: four crosses pattée and four strawberry leaves (alternating).

Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four strawberry leaves (alternating). This one is very interesting to me; presumably this coronet was meant for children of the sovereign's daughters domiciled in Britain, usually having foreign princes as fathers. Technically, however, the children of the Princess Royal, although untitled, would be perfectly entitled to this coronet. I do not know if it has been granted to them. Nor do I know if Viscount Linley or the late Earl of Harewood do or ever did use it.

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Charles von Hamm
George's potential siblings could possibly bear labels of seven points
in the current reign, if granted, for the same reasons Henry of Wales
had a label of five points (he is not in direct line).

Or possibly also five.

I think seven. Henry of Wales' label of five points indicates his position as a grandson not in the direct line of succession. Similarly, siblings of George of Cambridge will not be in the direct line of succession and will be great-grandchildren of the sovereign if born in the present reign.

[o***@gmail.com]

" Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four strawberry leaves (alternating)."

according to Brooke-Little in the 1983 edition of Boutell's, this coronet only applies to the 'other grandchildren of the sovereign bearing the title of prince or princess' i.e. female-line grandchildren who have been granted the designation of 'Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom' by royal warrant and contrary to the usual male-line method. As this has only happened on two occasions (the daughters of Princess Louise, eldest daughter of Edward VII and much to the consernation of the Garter King of Arms of the day), as well as the present Prince of Wales and Princess Royal during the lifetime of their grandfather George VI. Seeing as both the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal did not become Armigerous until after their mother had become Queen and they thus became children of the Sovereign, this coronet would have only ever been borne in the Arms of the two daughters of Princess Louise, who were granted Arms by Royal Warrant around the same time they became Princesses of the United Kingdom.

[Charles von Hamm]

Post by o***@gmail.com
" Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four strawberry leaves (alternating)."
according to Brooke-Little in the 1983 edition of Boutell's, this coronet only applies to the 'other grandchildren of the sovereign bearing the title of prince or princess' i.e. female-line grandchildren who have been granted the designation of 'Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom' by royal warrant and contrary to the usual male-line method. As this has only happened on two occasions (the daughters of Princess Louise, eldest daughter of Edward VII and much to the consernation of the Garter King of Arms of the day), as well as the present Prince of Wales and Princess Royal during the lifetime of their grandfather George VI. Seeing as both the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal did not become Armigerous until after their mother had become Queen and they thus became children of the Sovereign, this coronet would have only ever been borne in the Arms of the two daughters of Princess Louise, who were granted Arms by Royal Warrant around the same time they became Princesses of the United Kingdom.
" Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four strawberry leaves (alternating)."
according to Brooke-Little in the 1983 edition of Boutell's, this coronet >only applies to the 'other grandchildren of the sovereign bearing the title of >prince or princess' i.e. female-line grandchildren who have been granted the >designation of 'Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom' by royal warrant and >contrary to the usual male-line method. As this has only happened on two >occasions (the daughters of Princess Louise, eldest daughter of Edward VII and >much to the consernation of the Garter King of Arms of the day), as well as >the present Prince of Wales and Princess Royal during the lifetime of their >grandfather George VI. Seeing as both the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal >did not become Armigerous until after their mother had become Queen and they >thus became children of the Sovereign, this coronet would have only ever been >borne in the Arms of the two daughters of Princess Louise, who were granted >Arms by Royal Warrant around the same time they became Princesses of the >United Kingdom.

The actual royal warrant of 19 November 1917 states:

"...to the sons and daughters of the daughters of us and of our predecessors and of our successors a coronet composed of four fleurs-de-lis and four strawberry leaves to be borne and used by them being subjects of these our realms..."

It mentions nothing of them being princes or princesses. The warrant has never been revoked. It was issued by George V, well after his father had made his maternal granddaughters princesses.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Charles von Hamm

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Charles von Hamm
As for coronet, who knows. Maybe the coronet for the children of the
heir apparent also be borne by the children of the heir apparent's heir
apparent.

As the eldest son of the heir apparent is entitled to the coronet of
a younger son of the sovereign,you mean the coronet of the other children
of the heir apparent would be used for the eldest son's son?

The coronets are different.
Children of the sovereign: four crosses patt?e and four fleurs de lys
alternating. The heir apparent bears the same but with one arch (or two
half-arches). The sovereign bears this configuration with two arches (or
four half-arches). The sovereign and heir apparent have jeweled
coronets/crowns and all others are chased as if jeweled.
Children of the heir apparent: two crosses patt?e, four fleurs de lys,
and two strawberry leaves. This is the coronet the Duke of Cambridge and
his brother both bear.

The 1995 edition of Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage says on page 71:

"(1)The coronet of the heir apparent composed of alternate crosses patees
and fleurs de lys,surmounted by a single arch topped by an orb and cross...
It is often referred to incorrectly as the Prince of Wales's crown or
coronet.However,as that title is only bestowed at the sovereign's pleasure,
it would be better described as the Duke of Cornwall's coronet.

"(2)The coronet of the younger sons,brothers,daughters and sisters of a
sovereign is the same as the heir apparent's coronet with the omission of
the arch.The eldest son of the heir apparent is also entitled to this
coronet,but no other grandchildren of the sovereign use it.Originally
exclusive to the sons and brothers of the sovereign,this type was extended
by King Edward VII to his daughters,and King George VI approved its use
by the Duke of Edinburgh.

"(3)The coronet of younger children of the heir apparent and,since the
time of Queen Victoria,of daughters of younger sons of the sovereign
(oddly,the sons of younger sons use the next type) consists of two crosses
patees,two strawberry leaves and four fleurs-de-lys.This type of coronet
was also used by the daughters of sovereigns until King Edward VII
allowed the use of the previous type to his daughters.Lady Patricia
Ramsay continued to use her royal coronet even though she had renounced
the title of Princess and style of Royal Highness on her marriage."

See the second sentence of (2)...perhaps no one told William?

Post by Charles von Hamm
Children of sons (not the heir apparent) of the sovereign: four crosses
patt?e and four strawberry leaves (alternating).

Debrett's,as above:

"(4)The coronet of the sons of younger sons of a sovereign consists of
alternate crosses patees and strawberry leaves....Queen Victoria promoted
the daughters of younger sons to the preceding type..."

Post by Charles von Hamm
Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four
strawberry leaves (alternating). This one is very interesting to me;
presumably this coronet was meant for children of the sovereign's
daughters domiciled in Britain, usually having foreign princes as
fathers. Technically, however, the children of the Princess Royal,
although untitled, would be perfectly entitled to this coronet. I do
not know if it has been granted to them. Nor do I know if Viscount
Linley or the late Earl of Harewood do or ever did use it.

Debrett's 1995,page 72:

(5)A coronet composed of alternate fleurs-de-lys and strawberry leaves
is generally stated to belong to grandchildren of the sovereignt through
daughters.As Princesses generally married into other royal houses,this
coronet first came into use for the daughters of the Princess Royal,
Duchess of Fife.The Marquess of Carisbrooke was granted use of this
type of coronet after renouncing his German titles and actually wore
it at the 1937 coronation,lending it in 1953 to Lord Harewood,whose
wife however wore the ordinary Countess's Coronet since Lady Carisbrooke
attended the coronation and there was only one lady's coronet of this
type available.Since other grandchildren of sovereigns such as Princess
Marie Louise (who,however,used it heraldically) and the Hon. Gerald
Lascelles did not wear robes or coronets,it might be concluded that
this type of coronet appertains to the sovereign's grandchildren through
daughters provided such persons are peers or peeresses."

Post by Charles von Hamm

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Charles von Hamm
George's potential siblings could possibly bear labels of seven points
in the current reign, if granted, for the same reasons Henry of Wales
had a label of five points (he is not in direct line).

Or possibly also five.

I think seven. Henry of Wales' label of five points indicates his
position as a grandson not in the direct line of succession. Similarly,
siblings of George of Cambridge will not be in the direct line of
succession and will be great-grandchildren of the sovereign if born in
the present reign.

But this would require that the arms change thereafter,and if a single
grant is intended to anyone not in direct line,that would cause a fuss.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Charles von Hamm]

Post by Louis Epstein
"(1)The coronet of the heir apparent composed of alternate crosses patees
and fleurs de lys,surmounted by a single arch topped by an orb and cross...
It is often referred to incorrectly as the Prince of Wales's crown or
coronet.However,as that title is only bestowed at the sovereign's pleasure,
it would be better described as the Duke of Cornwall's coronet.
"(2)The coronet of the younger sons,brothers,daughters and sisters of a
sovereign is the same as the heir apparent's coronet with the omission of
the arch.The eldest son of the heir apparent is also entitled to this
coronet,but no other grandchildren of the sovereign use it.Originally
exclusive to the sons and brothers of the sovereign,this type was extended
by King Edward VII to his daughters,and King George VI approved its use
by the Duke of Edinburgh.

"We now having taken this matter into our consideration do declare our royal will and pleasure and assigned to the immediate daughters and sisters of ourselves and of our successors a coronet composed of four crosses pattee and four fleurs-de-lis [Princess Royal, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex] and to all the sons and daughters of the son and heir apparent of us and of our successors a coronet composed of two crosses pattee four fleurs-de-lis and two strawberry leaves [Duke of Cambridge, Henry of Wales]..."

That is a direct quote from the royal warrant of 1917. Relevant cases today are given by me in brackets. The Duke of Cambridge bears the same coronet as his brother, Prince Henry of Wales. Indeed, if one looks at the official site for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge one will see the coronet of two crosses pattée, four fleurs de lys, and two strawberry leaves over the duke's arms. The version of Debrett's you quoted, unfortunately, is incorrect.

Post by Louis Epstein
"(3)The coronet of younger children of the heir apparent and,since the
time of Queen Victoria,of daughters of younger sons of the sovereign
(oddly,the sons of younger sons use the next type) consists of two crosses
patees,two strawberry leaves and four fleurs-de-lys.This type of coronet
was also used by the daughters of sovereigns until King Edward VII
allowed the use of the previous type to his daughters.Lady Patricia
Ramsay continued to use her royal coronet even though she had renounced
the title of Princess and style of Royal Highness on her marriage."
See the second sentence of (2)...perhaps no one told William?

Post by Charles von Hamm
Children of sons (not the heir apparent) of the sovereign: four crosses
patt?e and four strawberry leaves (alternating).

"(4)The coronet of the sons of younger sons of a sovereign consists of
alternate crosses patees and strawberry leaves....Queen Victoria promoted
the daughters of younger sons to the preceding type..."

Post by Charles von Hamm
Other grandchildren of the sovereign: four fleurs de lys and four
strawberry leaves (alternating). This one is very interesting to me;
presumably this coronet was meant for children of the sovereign's
daughters domiciled in Britain, usually having foreign princes as
fathers. Technically, however, the children of the Princess Royal,
although untitled, would be perfectly entitled to this coronet. I do
not know if it has been granted to them. Nor do I know if Viscount
Linley or the late Earl of Harewood do or ever did use it.

(5)A coronet composed of alternate fleurs-de-lys and strawberry leaves
is generally stated to belong to grandchildren of the sovereignt through
daughters.As Princesses generally married into other royal houses,this
coronet first came into use for the daughters of the Princess Royal,
Duchess of Fife.The Marquess of Carisbrooke was granted use of this
type of coronet after renouncing his German titles and actually wore
it at the 1937 coronation,lending it in 1953 to Lord Harewood,whose
wife however wore the ordinary Countess's Coronet since Lady Carisbrooke
attended the coronation and there was only one lady's coronet of this
type available.Since other grandchildren of sovereigns such as Princess
Marie Louise (who,however,used it heraldically) and the Hon. Gerald
Lascelles did not wear robes or coronets,it might be concluded that
this type of coronet appertains to the sovereign's grandchildren through
daughters provided such persons are peers or peeresses."

I don't think there are enough cases to prove that only peers or peeresses who are maternal grandchildren can have it. The warrant simply doesn't state that.

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Charles von Hamm
I think seven. Henry of Wales' label of five points indicates his
position as a grandson not in the direct line of succession. Similarly,
siblings of George of Cambridge will not be in the direct line of
succession and will be great-grandchildren of the sovereign if born in
the present reign.

But this would require that the arms change thereafter,and if a single
grant is intended to anyone not in direct line,that would cause a fuss.

Arms have to change anyway. The Duke of Cambridge will have to drop his single red shell and Prince Henry of Wales will have to change from a five point label to a three point label (presumably with a red shell on each of the three points).

If George of Cambridge were granted three points with the center point bearing a red acorn, he could keep those arms through the current reign and through Charles' reign, only having to drop the acorn at his father's accession.

[o***@gmail.com]

I wonder if the children of Princess Helena; Prince Albert, Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise used the coronet used by the Fife daughters? They were all certainly granted the use of their mother's Arms 1&4 with their father's Arms 2&3 by royal warrant.

Incidentally, all three dropped the territorial designation 'of Schleswig-Holstein' in 1917, becoming Princes and Princesses of...nowhere (:s), only for Prince Albert to re-adopt it when he became Head of the House of Oldenburg. 'zu Schleswig-Holstein' was also adopted by his illegitimate daughter Valerie Marie shortly after his death and after he had acknowledged his paternity.