But there's a bit of a problem with Ive's design demonstrating some historical ignorance.
At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? But at the bottom we have a white rose which is the moniker of the house of York. The house of York's lineage ended in 1499.
There was this thing called The War of The Roses, which saw the House of Lancaster and the House of York in conflict with each other.
If this was signed off by Prince Charles then he's as equally ignorant of the significance of the white rose. Even to this day it ruffles feather. The Tudor line pretty much ended when James VI of Scotland took the throne. Years down the line the Windsors were an imported royalty supplanting the House of Hanover at the turn of the 20th century, and has no direct connection with York or Lancaster sigils.
Most UK folks with the faintest awareness of history on the British Isles would spot this right away. We got this stage of English history rammed down our throats, even in Scottish schools.
In short, it's just another corporate logo that "looks nice" but the designer is clearly a bit clueless. I thought Ive would know better.
> At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know?
It's not a crown but a coronet. Coronet are a heraldic device to symbolise noble ranks, including those of the royal family. In British usage a coronet of crosses and fleur-de-lis symbolises a child of the sovereign.
One could quibble about another detail: traditionally Charles’ coronet as heir apparent is displayed with a single arch. Crowns have two or more arches. That single arch is almost not there apart from the green arch formed by those interlocking circles of the seal.
Btw: It’s seems a bit silly to call the House of Windsor or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha “imported”. Queen Victoria of Hanover married, her son and heir took the “house” from his father, that’s pretty much it. What’s far more annoying was the patriarchal habit that “houses” go with the father’s line, at least until EIIR and Philipp.
Btw 2: Isn’t every British and English royal house “imported”?
Hanover was imported from Germany, based on distant descent from James’ VI/I second child and of course protestantism.
Stuart was imported, based on distant descent.
Tudor … imported and invented themselves, based on distant descent.
Plantagenet was Angevin, meaning from Anjou in France, because Geoffrey of Anjou married Matilda.
Normandy imported themselves, because of distant descend from Wessex.
Denmark is Denmark.
Wessex is homegrown, apart from the whole “sex” part.
The design of the York rose is quite consistent. It isn't merely "a flower with white petals". In particular, these always have five petals; the one at the bottom has six.
Not every white flower is a symbol of York versus Lancaster.
At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? But at the bottom we have a white rose which is the moniker of the house of York. The house of York's lineage ended in 1499.
There was this thing called The War of The Roses, which saw the House of Lancaster and the House of York in conflict with each other.
If this was signed off by Prince Charles then he's as equally ignorant of the significance of the white rose. Even to this day it ruffles feather. The Tudor line pretty much ended when James VI of Scotland took the throne. Years down the line the Windsors were an imported royalty supplanting the House of Hanover at the turn of the 20th century, and has no direct connection with York or Lancaster sigils.
Most UK folks with the faintest awareness of history on the British Isles would spot this right away. We got this stage of English history rammed down our throats, even in Scottish schools.
In short, it's just another corporate logo that "looks nice" but the designer is clearly a bit clueless. I thought Ive would know better.