Forget the banner headlines and the endless speculation. One sentence tucked away deep within a broadsheet newspaper this Sunday may well offer proof that Kate Middleton is set to marry Prince William.

Writing in this weekend's Observer newspaper, diarist Oliver Marre briefly mentions that he's been informed that Michael Middleton has approached the College of Arms to produce a Coat of Arms.

The role of granting new Coat of Arms to people in England falls to the Earl Marshal of The College of Arms. The arms usually incorporate elements of especial significance to a personage or family, in Kate's instance very possibly links to Wales. Her family has close ancestral ties to the Principality and she herself is, of course, dating the future Prince of Wales.

It could, of course, simply be a coincidence that this apparent 'news' comes at a time when much of the world is eagerly awaiting a sign that Prince William is to marry.

As the Observer journalist appears to feel, it may also be a move borne of an inflated ego, for heraldry is repeatedly embraced by self-proclaimed members of high society and the world of celebrity. Recent converts to the concept of proudly displaying a personal crest include ex-Beatle Sir Paul McCartney and, a little more incongruously, soccer star David Beckham and his wife, Victoria (a.k.a. 'Posh Spice').

However, in Kate Middleton's instance such a move should be treated a little more seriously.

If this is true (as with all these reports, we have to accept that it is, at this point, speculation) then it is of far more significance than that which sees celebrities invest thousands of pounds for a symbol which many on the outside world may feel does little but boost a person's profile and perhaps even an inflated sense of self importance.

The fact is that, as with titles and uniforms, such heraldic symbols as this are hugely important to the Royal Family and, on a separate level, the promotion of the monarchy as an ancient institution, one which stands for continuity and the celebration of our heritage and that of the family dynasty.

According to heraldry expert Ian Davison says: "When you display a coat of arms you are in essence declaring your association with a particular family, clan or organisation."

Royal brides born of the nobility usually have their own Coat of Arms, much to the relief of the producers of commemorative items. Many homes throughout the world likely contain at least one commemorative piece featuring a coat of arms of the late Princess of Wales. Official programs produced at the time of the engagements/weddings of both Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah incorporate Coats of Arms relating to the bridegroom and his wife-to-be or her family.

However, it was only on the eve of Lady Diana Spencer's July 29th wedding to the heir to the throne in 1981 that the future Princess's new, personal Coat of Arms were revealed.

The arms of the 19-year-old woman who, following her death, would be deemed by Princess Michael of Kent to have possibly been seen by her new husband as little more than "a womb", aptly incorporated a symbol of fertility in the form of myrtle.

As a single woman, the arms were primarily based on those of Diana's father, Earl 'Johnnie' Spencer, whose family coat of arms were those of the medieval family Le Despencer.

In February 1982, a Coat of Arms were produced uniting the heraldic crests of both the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Such potent symbols have even played a significant part in royal fashion. Sarah Ferguson's wedding dress designer Lindka Cierach incorporated the bride's arms of bees and thistles into her flowing gown, resulting in a glorious effect on the rear of the train as the future Duchess of York swept down the aisle of Westminster Abbey on July 23rd 1986.

Prince William incorporated his Spencer heritage, denoted by red scallops, into his Coat of Arms which were unveiled in the summer of 2000 in celebration of the future King's 18th birthday.

Looking into our most recent history of royal brides, the official Coat of Arms of the Duchess of Cornwall was revealed on her 58th birthday on July 16th 2005, just three months after her wedding to Prince Charles.

Unlike Diana, Camilla's Coat of Arms stand alone from those of her husband. However, following tradition they do incorporate a crown which sits above the main arms to signify the Duchess's royal status.

We can only wait to see whether the request which has allegedly gone out from the Middleton family to the College of Arms will ultimately result in the crowning of Katherine Elizabeth Middleton....

Your Name:

Your Email Address:

Your Homepage:


Comment:

BOLD

"QUOTE"

UNDERLINE

Name: exploora	Comment: Joanne is that rule true?

Name: Ms Wales

Comment: If it doesn't happen soon then we'll know for sure. Kate isn't exactly Princess material. I think it is still in his best interest to cool his relationship because due to HM, the Queen Elizabeth II 's new rule a royal divorice will result in a an automatic abdication of the royal from his or her position in the line of Succession. Kate still needs to get her act together before she considers a serious relationship.

Name: exploora

Comment: I think it was just assumed we meant Kate's father was applying, but indirectly we assume it is for Kate. That is why it is a glorified pedigree, cause it is tradionally the father that applies, but I was just making the assumption, Kate's father was applying was a given, since it was already in the article. I think though the art work is very nice, and I am sure the family coat of arms will be lovely. It is important to remember one's roots. For eample my grandfather came from England on a boat, eating scrapes off people's plates, hoping for a better life in Canada, cause the glass ceiling, at the time, in England, didn't give him a chance to get passed grade 6. Do we have a coat of arms. Nooo. I suppose that is why. Did our family get beyond the grade 6 level here. Yes. Maybe that is noble too.

Name: Ompeng	Comment: Anyone can get a coat of arms. Most already have an existing one based on family members who lived a long time ago. I found mine (my family originated from Spain) and my husband's (family originated from Ireland) We paid for it to be combined and create and entirely new Coat of Arms.

Name: Trudie	Comment: Sorry Mel I must have misunderstood your post thanks for clearing it up.

Name: Mel

Comment: To Trudie - Camilla already had her own Coat of Arms before she married, because she comes from an aristocratic background. The Coat of Arms you are talking about is a new one that was necessary because she married the POW, it consist of elements from her own family arms and the arms of the POW. As for Kate’s father – it would be highly uncommon for a woman to apply for a Coat of Arms when the family itself not already has one unless she becomes a life peeress. Otherwise the family would apply for a general Coat of Arms for the family members to use. So if the Windsors asked Kate to get a Coat of Arms if would be her father to apply for it - that’s the traditional way to do it.

Name: exploora

Comment: Isn't a coat of arms just a gracious way of describing a "pedigree." Needing a "pedigree" for a human does sound vulgar, so I guess that is why they go the "coat of arms route." I don't see a link to a page where you can verify if someone has applied for a coat of arms, I suspect it is treated like a private matter until the coat of arms is granted. I can just see the link to recently granted coat of arms. http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Grants.htm And the ones on the web page are lovely. I would think Kate would have to have a coat of arms if she were to marry William, but she could also set off a new fashion fad. When you think about it. All kinds of people may want to get one. I suppose, some wouldn't qualify. I sort of like the idea myself. They are very nice. They look very noble. But I guess if you see them for what they are, a glorified pedigree, well then they are sort of vulgar. It is all in the way you look at it.

Name: Trudie	Comment: Mel it is Kates father who is requesting the Coat of Arms not Kate and I highly doubt the Windsors would ask Kate to apply for a Coat of Arms before marriage as in the case of Camilla who aquired hers after marriage.

Name: Mel	Comment: Maybe the Windsors asked Kate to apply for a Coat of Arms, then it would be neither arrogant or vulgar. People shouldn't judge her until all facts are known. By now it is only a rumour. There is no information about it on the website of the College of Arms.

Name: exploora

Comment: I think coming from a family with a coat of arms probably lifts your expectations up, quite a bit. Feeling significant and important I would assume is the psyhological processing of being Royaled, and of course having that taken away is what hurts when a person is deroyaled. I think "the coat of arms" issue is a very important part of our social engineering history. The difference between being gracious when stepping on commoners and just being an unpleasant red neck peasant king.

Name: Hope

Comment: Christine, your point is well taken. Our family has a coat of arms but since no one uses it, no one can actually remember what it looks like. But Trudie's and Karmen's comments seem more apropos--the timing of this request for a coat of arms is what is so presumputous--and yes, vulgar and arrogant. If the Windsors think Kate is from a down to earth family, I think they need to open their eyes.

Name: Christine

Comment: A coat of arms is basically your family's ancestry. I don't see why everyone is up in arms(sorry, had to do it)about it. Quite ordinary people have arms. One branch of my family has arms that date from the 15th century. Nothing arrogant at all about it. It's just that we know where we came from, and some of the circumstances involved in creating this family today. I think that anyone involved in geneological research or wanting to know about your family would consider having arms made/discovered.I think every family should spend some time learning how to find/write down their family history. A family crest should be made/discovered for each family upon marriage. Having pride in one's family is not a sin.

Name: Gill Webster

Comment: I don't see this as arrogance at all. If their daughter is to marry a future king, she will become a royal lady and will require a coat of arms and her own insignia. Its part of the trappings of the role of Princess of the realm. Joanne, I think you'll also find that Diana's arms "stood alone" from Charles's on occasion when required. They were only shown jointly when representing both of them at the same time. If something was requiring arms for Diana alone then hers were used that way, too. Also, if Charles & Camilla require to be represented as a couple, their arms will be displayed jointly, too.

Name: Trudie	Comment: The ultimate in vulgar social climbing!!!!!!.

Name: M-M	Comment: I inagine the Rees Jones family drew up a coat of arms for Sophie when she became a Royal . Yes, another significent action . Of course the Middletons might just be very optimistic !

Name: Karmen Day	Comment: What an arrogant family!

Name: exploora	Comment: Kate would need one I suppose, since she doesn't have one. A coat of arms sounds so noble. Something any normal person would want to put on their registry for wedding gifts if they didn't already have one.