I hope I won’t bore you to death with this explanation. Markle does NOT have her own coat of arms she has an “impaled” coat of arms which is a joint coa with her husband. This is very odd but I suspect they did it for several reasons including one possibly very important reason related to divorce.
They gave her impaled or joint arms because they did not want to have anything to do with a “Markle” coa. This would have been a paternal coa – arms from her father. There is no chain which denotes service and rewards for service as well as obligation to serve because the chain might also be associated with slavery (IMHO).
The end result is the so-called feminist has no coa of her own no reflection of her heritage she is allegedly so proud of and no connection to service or accomplishment despite all her humanitarian babbling.
But when a man divorces his impaled arms still carry the arms of the first wife. As in one half his arms, the other half divided so the first wife’s PATERNAL arms are displayed and the second wife’s arms are also displayed. Because MM is now without arms of her own (paternal arms) I am fairly sure this means in case of the much wished for divorce Harry and his second wife need not share their impaled arms with MM. I hope I explained that right.
So what we have here is no individual arms for the feminist but only shared or impaled arms with her hubby and no need to share an impaled arm of the second wife with MM. Interesting right?
Thank you anon, that is interesting