Should Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Lose Their Individual Coat of Arms?

There's a significant misconception in discussing whether Meghan Markle and Prince Harry should retain their individual coat of arms after stepping down from their senior royal roles.

Understanding the Granting of Arms

Arms, or coats of arms, are granted at the discretion of the Sovereign through the College of Arms. Once granted, they are typically lifelong. They can be revoked, but this is rarely done in practice. Moreover, arms are usually heritable through the male line, meaning Harry's sons could potentially inherit them.

The Royalty Context

Harry and Meghan were granted arms because of their royal status and Meghan's marriage to a prince. However, it's important to note that one does not need to be royalty to have a coat of arms. Their decision to step back from their royal duties does not mean they are stepping down as royals—they remain members of the royal family, regardless of their involvement in official duties.

Practical Considerations

The discussion about whether they should keep their arms hangs on practical implications. Unlike outright abdication, maintaining their individual arms does not necessarily mean they are 'royal' in the sense that their titles can be revoked. The key question is whether the UK or any other nation footing the bill for their upkeep (like Canada) would be willing to do so.

Metaphorical Business Analogy

To illustrate, imagine a family business. Your job is in the public frontline, and you're crucial to the sales and public relations efforts. After getting married, you bring in your spouse to help with these tasks. While popular initially, some customers feel that you should have stayed single. When your spouse helps you, and you make improvements specific to your needs, the more the customers try to exert control over your new partner.

When your child is born, the situation escalates. Some customers, feeling they own your business, demand to be involved in the birth of the new member of the family, believing they should have a say in your medical decisions. This situation is exacerbated by external disgruntled parties. In this case, you and your family decide to take a holiday in a country that respects your business and is less interfered with, allowing you a semblance of privacy and peace.

A similar analogy can be drawn with Harry and Meghan. If they step back from public life, they can enjoy more privacy and settle in a less intrusive environment, while maintaining their individual coat of arms.

Conclusion

Regarding the coat of arms specifically, keeping them is a recognition of their heritage and personal journey, even if they diminish their public royal roles. The decision to abdicate or lose the coat of arms should not be lightly made, as it carries emotional weight beyond financial implications. The argument is not about being petty, but about acknowledging and respecting a part of their identity.

So, while the decision is complex, it should not be seen as a frivolous issue but as a meaningful part of their family and personal history.