• Princess Eugenie's new arms?

    From Baron P A & HA@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 13 05:18:52 2018
    Does anyone know how they changed since her marriage on Friday?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Howarth@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 13 09:07:30 2018
    On Saturday, 13 October 2018 13:18:53 UTC+1, Baron P A & HA wrote:
    Does anyone know how they changed since her marriage on Friday?

    Why should they have changed? As Mrs Brooksbank, she is still a granddaughter of the sovereign. It would appear that the couple are not concerned about their heraldry, since their wedding would have been the normal time to have made any official
    announcement. Coats of arms are not compulsory. Good luck to them!

    Peter Howarth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From opreroma53@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 13 11:48:05 2018
    The groom is the male-line descendant of a younger son of a baronet (the heir to the baronetcy read a reading at the service); so he is almost definitely armigerous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Howarth@21:1/5 to oprer...@gmail.com on Sun Oct 14 01:35:45 2018
    On Saturday, 13 October 2018 19:48:06 UTC+1, oprer...@gmail.com wrote:
    The groom is the male-line descendant of a younger son of a baronet (the heir to the baronetcy read a reading at the service); so he is almost definitely armigerous.

    I take your point. But there is heraldry in theory and heraldry in practice. As eldest son, I inherited my father's arms, but I never use them in public. My house is not the kind to display a banner, and I no longer wear my father's signet ring now
    that wax seals have disappeared. Nor do my children bother. For them heraldry is pretty much irrelevant nowadays. In practice, they have no coat of arms. I see their point. The original purpose of heraldry, as personal identification on seals and
    over armour, petered out in the fifteenth century and heraldry became simply a status symbol. That's why my research into mediaeval heraldry only goes as far as 1400 or shortly after.

    Mr and Mrs Brooksbank have no title and may feel that heraldry too is not important. That seems a perfectly rational approach. The royal family and the aristocracy may still have uses for their arms. But others can only fabricate excuses to use theirs.
    And when they do, nobody recognises them, so the point of the heraldry is lost.

    Peter Howarth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From opreroma53@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 14 05:45:24 2018
    That's...With all due respect pretty irrelevant to this conversation. The groom is armigerous, entitled to arms, and entitled to use them should he so wish, as opposed to someone like Mike Tindall who is and remains a non-armiger. Whether he wishes to
    use them or not is pretty immaterial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Howarth@21:1/5 to oprer...@gmail.com on Sun Oct 14 07:09:15 2018
    On Sunday, 14 October 2018 13:45:25 UTC+1, oprer...@gmail.com wrote:
    That's...With all due respect pretty irrelevant to this conversation. The groom is armigerous, entitled to arms, and entitled to use them should he so wish, as opposed to someone like Mike Tindall who is and remains a non-armiger. Whether he wishes to
    use them or not is pretty immaterial.

    We may have come to different views about the question. I thought it was about how her arms *have* changed. Do you feel it was about how they *might* change?

    If we are looking at the second way, then I agree with you entirely.

    Peter Howarth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From opreroma53@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 18 09:53:26 2018
    Well I managed to find the arms of the Brookesback baronets:

    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brooksbank_Baronetcy_coat-of-arms.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 3ARwun@21:1/5 to Peter Howarth on Fri Oct 19 04:21:53 2018
    On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:35:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Howarth wrote:


    I inherited my father's arms, but I never use them in public. My house is not the kind to display a banner, and I no longer wear my father's signet ring now that wax seals have disappeared. Nor do my children bother. For them heraldry is pretty
    much irrelevant nowadays. In practice, they have no coat of arms. I see their point. The original purpose of heraldry, as personal identification on seals and over armour, petered out in the fifteenth century and heraldry became simply a status symbol.
    That's why my research into mediaeval heraldry only goes as far as 1400 or shortly after.

    Mr and Mrs Brooksbank have no title and may feel that heraldry too is not important. That seems a perfectly rational approach. The royal family and the aristocracy may still have uses for their arms. But others can only fabricate excuses to use
    theirs. And when they do, nobody recognises them, so the point of the heraldry is lost.

    Peter Howarth

    I certainly can't deny any of that. We once had a thread on modern uses of heraldry and didn't come up with much. One poster would put his arms on his luggage and luggage tag at the airport to make getting out of baggage claim easier while still accurate.
    Another used an armorial banner as a rally point for special needs kids on outings at Disney and etc. There were two others I don't remember. I don't particularly like the idea of using a picture as an icon for facebook/twitter and use arms instead.
    Other than that, it's fading fast....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)