XXXI. MARKS OF CADENCY…

XXXI. MARKS OF CADENCY

The manner in which cadency is indicated in heraldic emblazonment forms one of the most important parts of British armory, but our own intricate and minutely detailed systems are a purely British development of armory. I do not intend by the foregoing remark to assert that the occasional use, or even, as in some cases, the constant use of altered arms for purposes of indicating cadency is unknown on the Continent, because different branches of one family are constantly found using, for the purposes of distinction, variations of the arms appertaining to the head of their house; in France especially the bordure has been extensively used, but the fact nevertheless remains that in no other countries is there found an organised system or set of rules for the purpose. Nor is this idea of the indication of cadency wholly a modern development, though some, in fact most, of the rules presently in force are no doubt a result of modern requirements, and do not date back to the earliest periods of heraldry in this country.

The obligation of cadet lines to difference their arms was recognised practically universally in the fourteenth century; and when, later, the systematic use of differencing seemed in danger of being ignored, it was made the subject of specific legislation. In the treatise of ZYPOEUS, de Notitia juris Belgici, lib. xii., quoted also in MENETRIER, Recherches du Blazon, p. 218, we find the following:--

"Ut secundo et ulterius geniti, quinimo primogeniti vivo patre, integra insignia non gerant, sed aliqua nota distincta, ut perpetuo linæ dignosci possint, et ex qua quique descendant, donec anteriores defecerint. Exceptis Luxenburgis et Gueldris, quibus non sunt ii mores." (The exception is curious.)

The choice of these brisures, as marks of difference are often termed, was, however, left to the persons concerned; and there is, consequently, a great variety of differences or differentiation marks which seem to have been used for the purpose. The term "brisure" is really French, whilst the German term for these marks is "Beizeichen."

British heraldry, on the contrary, is remarkable for its use of two {478} distinct sets of rules--the English and the Scottish--the Irish system being identical with the former.

To understand the question of cadency it is necessary to revert to the status of a coat of arms in early periods. In the first chapter we dealt with the origin of armory; and in a subsequent chapter with the status of a coat of arms in Great Britain, and it will therefrom have been apparent that arms, and a right to them, developed in this country as an adjunct of, or contemporaneously with, the extension of the feudal system. Every landowner was at one time required to have his seal--presumably, of arms--and as a result arms were naturally then considered to possess something of a territorial character. I do not by this mean to say that the arms belonged to the land and were transferable with the sale and purchase thereof. There never was in this country a period at which such an idea held; nor were arms originally entirely personal or individual. They belonged rather to a position half-way between the two. They were the arms of a given family, originating because that family held land and accepted the consequent responsibilities thereto belonging, but the arms appertained for the time being to the member of that family who owned the land, and that this is the true idea of the former status of a coat of arms is perhaps best evidenced by the Grey and Hastings controversy, which engaged the attention of the Court of Chivalry for several years prior to 1410. The decision and judgment in the case gave the undifferenced arms of Hastings to the heir-general (Grey de Ruthyn), the heir-male (Sir Edward Hastings) being found only capable of bearing the arms of Hastings subject to some mark of difference.

This case, and the case of Scrope and Grosvenor, in which the king's award was that the bordure was not sufficient difference for a stranger in blood, being only the mark of a cadet, show clearly that the status of a coat of arms in early times was that in its undifferenced state it belonged to one person only for the time being, and that person the head of the family, though it should be noted that the term "Head of the Family" seems to have been interpreted into the one who held the lands of the family--whether he were heir-male or heir-general being apparently immaterial.

This much being recognised, it follows that some means were needed to be devised to differentiate the armorial bearings of the younger members of the family. Of course the earliest definite instances of any attempt at a systematic "differencing" for cadency which can be referred to are undoubtedly those cases presented by the arms of the younger members of the Royal Family in England. These cases, however, it is impossible to take as precedents. Royal Arms have always, from the very earliest times, been a law unto themselves, {479} subject only to the will of the Sovereign, and it is neither safe nor correct to deduce precedents to be applied to the arms of subjects from proved instances concerning the Royal Arms.

Probably, apart from these, the earliest mark of cadency which is to be met with in heraldry is the label (Fig. 689) used to indicate the eldest son, and this mark of difference dates back far beyond any other regularised methods applicable to "younger" sons. The German name for the label is "Turnierkragen," i.e. Tournament Collar, which may indicate the origin of this curious figure. Probably the use of the label can be taken back to the middle or early part of the thirteenth century, but the opportunity and necessity of marking the arms of the heir-apparent temporarily, he having the expectation of eventually succeeding to the undifferenced arms, is a very different matter to the other opportunities for the use of marks of cadency. The lord and his heir were the two most important members of the family, and all others sunk their identity in their position in the household of their chief unless they were established by marriage, or otherwise, in lordships of their own, in which cases they are usually found to have preferred the arms of the family from whom they inherited the lordships they enjoyed; and their identities being to such a large extent overlooked, the necessity for any system of marking the arms of a younger son was not so early apparent as the necessity for marking the arms of the heir.

The label does not appear to have been originally confined exclusively to the heir. It was at first the only method of differencing known, and it is not therefore to be wondered at that we find that it was frequently used by other cadets, who used it with no other meaning than to indicate that they were not the Head of the House. It has, consequently, in some few cases [for example, in the arms of Courtenay (Fig. 246), Babington, and Barrington] become stereotyped as a charge, and is continuously and unchangeably used as such, whereas doubtless it may have been no more originally than a mere mark of cadency. The label was originally drawn with its upper edge identical with the top of the shield (Fig. 520), but later its position on the shield was lowered. The number of points on the label was at first without meaning, a five-pointed label occurring in Fig. 690 and a seven-pointed one in Fig. 235.

In the Roll of Caerlaverock the label is repeatedly referred to. Of Sir MAURICE DE BERKELEY it is expressly declared that

"... un label de asur avoit, Porce qe ces peres vivoit."

{480}

Sir PATRICK DUNBAR, son of the Earl of LOTHIAN (i.e. of MARCH), then bore arms similar to his father, with the addition of a label "azure." On the other hand, Sir JOHN DE SEGRAVE is said to bear his deceased father's arms undifferenced, while his younger brother NICHOLAS carries them with a label "gules"; and in the case of EDMUND DE HASTINGS the label is also assigned to a younger brother. Further proof of its being thus borne by cadets is furnished by the evidence in the GREY and HASTINGS controversy in the reign of HENRY IV., from which it appeared that the younger line of the HASTINGS family had for generations differenced the paternal coat by a label of three points; and, as various knights and esquires had deposed to this label being the cognisance of the nearest heir, it was argued that the defendant's ancestors would not have borne their arms in this way had they not been the reputed next heirs of the family of the Earl of PEMBROKE. The label will be seen in Figs. 690, 691, and 692, though its occurrence in the last case in each of the quarters is most unusual. The argent label on the arms for the Sovereignty of Man is a curious confirmation of the reservation of an argent label for Royalty.

WILLIAM RUTHVEN, Provost of PERTH, eldest son of the Master of RUTHVEN, bore a label of four points in 1503. Two other instances may be noticed of a label borne by a powerful younger brother. One is WALTER STEWART, Earl of MENTEITH, the fourth High Steward, in 1292; and we find the label again on the seal of his son ALEXANDER STEWART, Earl of MENTEITH.

At Caerlaverock, HENRY of Lancaster, brother and successor of THOMAS, Earl of LANCASTER--

"Portait les armes son frère Au beau bastoun sans label,"

i.e. he bore the Royal Arms, differenced by a bendlet "azure." {481}

JANE FENTOUN, daughter and heir-apparent of WALTER FENTOUN of Baikie, bore a label in 1448, and dropped it after her father's death. This is apparently an instance quite unique. I know of no other case where the label has been used by a woman as a mark of difference.

In FRANCE the label was the chief recognised mode of difference, though the bend and the bordure are frequently to be met with.

In GERMANY, SPENER tells us that the use of the label, though occasional, was not infrequent: "Sicuti in Gallia vix alius discerniculorum modus frequentior est, ita rariora exempla reperimus in Germania," and he gives a few examples, though he is unable to assign the reason for its assumption as a hereditary bearing. The most usual method of differencing in Germany was by the alteration of the tinctures or by the alteration of the charges. As an example of the former method, the arms of the Bavarian family of Parteneck may be instanced (Figs. 693 to 697), all representing the arms of different branches of the same family.

Next to the use of the label in British heraldry came the use of the bordure, and the latter as a mark of cadency can at any rate be traced back as a well-established matter of rule and precedent as far as the Scrope and Grosvenor controversy in the closing years of the fourteenth century.

At the period when the bordure as a difference is to be most frequently met with in English heraldry, it never had any more definite status or meaning than a sign that the bearer was not the head of the house, though one cannot but think that in many cases in which it occurs its significance is a doubt as to legitimate descent, or a doubt of the probability of an asserted descent. In modern English practice the bordure as a difference for cadets only continues to be used by those whose ancestors bore it in ancient times. Its other use as a modern mark of illegitimacy is dealt with in the chapter upon marks of illegitimacy, but the curious and unique Scottish system of cadency bordures will be presently referred to.

In Germany of old the use of the bordure as a difference does not appear to have been very frequent, but it is now used to distinguish {482} the arms of the Crown Prince. In Italian heraldry, although differences are known, there is no system whatever. In Spain and Portugal marks of cadency, in our sense of the word, are almost unknown, but nevertheless the bordure, especially as indicating descent from a maternal ancestor, is very largely employed. The most familiar instance is afforded by the Royal Arms of Portugal, in which the arms of PORTUGAL are surrounded by a "bordure" of CASTILE.

Differencing, however, had become a necessity at an earlier period than the period at which we find an approach to the systematic usage of the label, bordure, and bend, but it should be noticed that those who wished, and needed, to difference were those younger members of the family who by settlement, or marriage, had themselves become lords of other estates, and heads of distinct houses. For a man must be taken as a "Head of a House" for all intents and purposes as soon as by his possession of lands "held in chief" he became himself liable to the Crown to provide stated military service, and as a consequence found the necessity for a banner of arms, under which his men could be mustered. Now having these positions as overlords, the inducement was rather to set up arms for themselves than to pose merely as cadets of other families, and there can be no doubt whatever that at the earliest period, differencing, for the above reason, took the form of and was meant as a change in the arms. It was something quite beyond and apart from the mere condition of a right to recognised arms, with an indication thereupon that the bearer was not the person chiefly entitled to the display of that particular coat. We therefore find cadets bearing the arms of their house with the tincture changed, with subsidiary charges introduced, or with some similar radical alteration made. Such coats should properly be considered essentially different coats, merely indicating in their design a given relationship rather than as the same coat regularly differenced by rule to indicate cadency. For instance, the three original branches of the Conyers family bear: "Azure, a maunch ermine; azure, a maunch or; azure, a maunch ermine debruised by a bendlet gules." The coat differenced by the bend, of course, stands self-confessed as a differenced coat, but it is by no means certain, nor is it known whether "azure, a maunch ermine," or "azure, a maunch or" indicates the original Conyers arms, for the very simple reason that it is now impossible to definitely prove which branch supplies the true head of the family. It is known that a wicked uncle intervened, and usurped the estates to the detriment of the nephew and heir, but whether the uncle usurped the arms with the estates, or whether the heir changed his arms when settled on the other lands to which he migrated, there is now no means of ascertaining.

Similarly we find the Darcy arms ["Argent, three cinquefoils gules," {483} which is probably the oldest form], "Argent, crusuly and three cinquefoils gules," and "Azure, crusuly and three cinquefoils argent," and countless instances can be referred to where, for the purpose of indicating cadency, the arms of a family were changed in this manner. This reason, of which there can be no doubt, supplies the origin and the excuse for the custom of assigning similar arms when the descent is but doubtful. Similarity originally, though it may indicate consanguinity, was never intended to be proof thereof.

The principal ancient methods of alteration in arms, which nowadays are apparently accepted as former modes of differencing merely to indicate cadency, may perhaps be classified into: (a) Change of tincture; (b) the addition of small charges to the field, or to an ordinary; (c) the addition of a label or (d) of a canton or quarter; (e) the addition of an inescutcheon; (f) the addition (or change) of an ordinary; (g) the changing of the lines of partition enclosing an ordinary, and perhaps also (h) diminishing the number of charges; (i) a change of some or all of the minor charges. At a later date came (j) the systematic use of the label, the bordure, and the bend; and subsequently (k) the use of the modern systems of "marks of cadency." Perhaps, also, one should include (l) the addition of quarterings, the use of (m) augmentations and official arms, and (n) the escutcheon en surtout, indicating a territorial and titular lordship, but the three last-mentioned, though useful for distinction and frequently obviating the necessity of other marks of cadency, did not originate with the theory or necessities of differencing, and are not properly marks of cadency. At the same time, the warning should be given that it is not safe always to presume cadency when a change of tincture or other slight deviation from an earlier form of the arms is met with. Many families when they exhibited their arms at the Visitations could not substantiate them, and the heralds, in confirming arms, frequently deliberately changed the tinctures of many coats they met with, to introduce distinction from other authorised arms.

Practically contemporarily with the use of the bordure came the use of the bend, then employed for the same purpose. In the Armorial de Gelre, one of the earliest armorials now in existence which can be referred to, the well-known coat of Abernethy is there differenced by the bendlet engrailed, and the arms of the King of Navarre bear his quartering of France differenced by a bendlet compony. Amongst other instances in which the bend or bendlet appears originally as a mark of cadency, but now as a charge, may be mentioned the arms of Fitzherbert, Fulton, Stewart (Earl of Galloway), and others. It is a safe presumption with regard to ancient coats of arms that any coat in which the field is semé is in nine cases out of ten a differenced coat {484} for a junior cadet, as is also any coat in which a charge or ordinary is debruised by another. Of course in more modern times no such presumption is permissible. An instance of a semé field for cadency will be found in the case of the D'Arcy arms already mentioned. Little would be gained by a long list of instances of such differences, because the most careful and systematic investigations clearly show that in early times no definite rules whatever existed as to the assumption of differences, which largely depended upon the pleasure of the bearer, and no system can be deduced which can be used to decide that the appearance of any given difference or kind of difference meant a given set of circumstances. Nor can any system be deduced which has any value for the purposes of precedent.

Certain instances are appended which will indicate the style of differencing which was in vogue, but it should be distinctly remembered that the object was not to allocate the bearer of any particular coat of arms to any specific place in the family pedigree, but merely to show that he was not the head of the house, entitled to bear the undifferenced arms, if indeed it would not be more accurate to describe these instances as simply examples of different coats of arms used by members of the same family. For it should be remembered that anciently, before the days of "black and white" illustration, prominent change of tincture was admittedly a sufficient distinction between strangers in blood. Beyond the use of the label and the bordure there does not seem to have been any recognised system of differencing until at the earliest the fifteenth century--probably any regulated system does not date much beyond the commencement of the series of Visitations.

Of the four sons of GILLES DE MAILLY, who bore, "Or, three mallets vert," the second, third, and fourth sons respectively made the charges "gules," "azure," and "sable." The "argent" field of the DOUGLAS coat was in some branches converted into "ermine" as early as 1373; and the descendants of the DOUGLASES of Dalkeith made the chief "gules" instead of "azure." A similar mode of differencing occurs in the Lyon Register in many other families. The MURRAYS of Culbin in the North bore a "sable" field for their arms in lieu of the more usual "azure," and there seems reason to believe that the Southern Frasers originally bore their field "sable," the change to "azure" being an alteration made by those branches who migrated northwards. An interesting series of arms is met with in the case of the differences employed by the Earls of Warwick. Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. 1204), appears to have added to the arms of Warenne (his mother's family) "a chevron ermine." His son Henry, Earl of Warwick (d. 1229), changed the chevron to a bend, but Thomas, Earl {485} of Warwick (d. 1242), reverted to the chevron, a form which was perpetuated after the earldom had passed to the house of Beauchamp. An instance of the addition of mullets to the bend in the arms of Bohun is met with in the cadet line created Earls of Northampton.

The shield of WILLIAM DE ROUMARE, Earl of LINCOLN, who died in 1198, is adduced by Mr. PLANCHÉ as an early example of differencing by crosses crosslet; the principal charges being seven mascles conjoined, three, three, and one. We find in the Rolls of Arms of the thirteenth and early part of the fourteenth century many instances of coats crusily, billetty, bezanty, and "pleyn d'escallops," fleurette, and "a les trefoiles d'or." With these last Sir EDMOND DACRE of Westmoreland powdered the shield borne by the head of his family: "Gules, three escallops or" (Roll of Edward II.). The coat borne by the ACTONS of Aldenham, "Gules, crusily or, two lions passant argent," is sometimes quoted as a gerated coat of LESTRANGE; for EDWARD DE ACTON married the coheiress of LESTRANGE (living 1387), who bore simply: "Gules, two lions passant argent." That the arms of Acton are derived from Lestrange cannot be questioned, but the probability is that they were a new invention as a distinct coat, the charges suggested by Lestrange. The original coat of the House of Berkeley in England (Barclay in Scotland) appears to have been: "Gules, a chevron or" (or "argent"). The seals of ROBERT DE BERKELEY, who died 4 Henry III., and MAURICE DE BERKELEY, who died 1281, all show the shield charged with a chevron only. MORIS DE BARKELE, in the Roll temp. Henry III., bears: "Goules, a chevron argent."

But THOMAS, son of MAURICE, who died 15 EDWARD II., has the present coat: "Gules, a chevron between ten crosses patée argent;" while in the roll of Edward II., "De goules od les rosettes de argent et un chevron de argent" is attributed to Sir THOMAS DE BERKELEY. In Leicestershire the BERKELEYS gerated with cinquefoils, an ancient and favourite bearing in that county, derived of course from the arms or badge of the Earl of Leicester. In Scotland the BARCLAYS differenced by change of tincture, and bore: "Azure, a chevron argent between (or in chief) three crosses patée of the same." An interesting series of differences is met with upon the arms of NEVILLE of Raby, which are: "Gules, a saltire argent," and which were differenced by a crescent "sable"; a martlet "gules"; a mullet "sable" and a mullet "azure"; a "fleur-de-lis"; a rose "gules"; a pellet, or annulet, "sable," this being the difference of Lord Latimer; and two interlaced annulets "azure," all borne on the centre point of the saltire. The interlaced annulets were borne by Lord Montagu, as a second difference on the arms of his father, Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, he and his brother the King-maker both using the curious {486} compony label of azure and argent borne by their father, which indicated their descent from John of Gaunt. One of the best known English examples of differencing by a change of charges is that of the coat of the COBHAMS, "Gules, a chevron or," in which the ordinary was charged by various cadets with three pierced estoiles, three lions, three crossed crosslets, three "fleurs-de-lis," three crescents, and three martlets, all of "sable."

The original GREY coat ["Barry of six argent and azure"] is differenced in the Roll of Edward I. by a bend gules for JOHN DE GREY; at Caerlaverock this is engrailed.

The SEGRAVE coat ["Sable, a lion rampant argent"] is differenced by the addition of "a bendlet or"; or "a bendlet gules"; and the last is again differenced by engrailing it.

In the Calais Roll the arms of WILLIAM DE WARREN ["Chequy or and azure"] are differenced by the addition of a canton said to be that of FITZALAN (but really that of NERFORD).

Whilst no regular system of differencing has survived in France, and whilst outside the Royal Family arms in that country show comparatively few examples of difference marks, the system as regards the French Royal Arms was well observed and approximated closely to our own. The Dauphin of France bore the Royal Arms undifferenced but never alone, they being always quartered with the sovereign arms of his personal sovereignty of Dauphiné: "Or, a dolphin embowed azure, finned gules." This has been more fully referred to on page 254. It is much to be regretted that the arms of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales do not include the arms of his sovereignty of the Duchy of Cornwall, nor any allusion to his dignities of Prince of Wales or Earl of Chester.

The arms of the Dukes of Orleans were the arms of France differenced by a label argent. This is to be observed, for example, upon the seal (Fig. 698) of the Duchess Charlotte Elizabeth of Orleans, widow of Philip of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV. of France. She was a daughter of the Elector Charles Louis. The arms of the old Dukes of Anjou were the ancient coat of France (azure, semé-de-lis or) differenced by a label of five points gules, but the younger house {487} of Anjou bore the modern arms of France differenced by a bordure gules. The Dukes d'Alençon also used the bordure gules, but charged this with eight plates, whilst the Dukes de Berri used a bordure engrailed gules.

The Counts d'Angoulême used the arms of the Dukes of Orleans, adding a crescent gules on each point of the label, whilst the Counts d'Artois used France (ancient) differenced by a label gules, each point charged with three castles (towers) or.

The rules which govern the marks of cadency at present in England are as follows, and it should be carefully borne in mind that the Scottish system bears no relation whatever to the English system. The eldest son during the lifetime of his father differences his arms by a label of three points couped at the ends. This is placed in the centre chief point of the escutcheon. There is no rule as to its colour, which is left to the pleasure of the bearer; but it is usually decided as follows: (1) That it shall not be metal on metal, or colour on colour; (2) that it shall not be argent or white; and, if possible, that it shall differ from any colour or metal in which any component part of the shield is depicted. Though anciently the label was drawn throughout the shield, this does not now seem to be a method officially adopted. At any rate drawn throughout it apparently obtains no official countenance for the arms of subjects, though many of the best heraldic artists always so depict it. The eldest son bears this label during his father's lifetime, succeeding to the undifferenced shield on the death of his father. His children--being the grandchildren of the then head of the house--difference upon the label, but such difference marks are, like their father's, only contemporary with the life of the grandfather, and, immediately upon the succession of their father, the children remove the label, and difference upon the original arms. The use of arms by a junior grandson is so restricted in ordinary life that to all intents and purposes this may be ignored, except in the case of the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent, i.e. of the grandson in the lifetimes of his father and grandfather. In his case one label of five points is used, and to place a label upon a label is not correct when both are marks of cadency, and not charges. But the grandson on the death of his father, during the lifetime of the grandfather, and when the grandson succeeds as heir-apparent of the grandfather, succeeds also to the label of three points, which may therefore more properly be described as the difference mark of the heir-apparent than the difference mark of the eldest son. It is necessary, perhaps, having said this, to add the remark that heraldry knows no such thing as disinheritance, and heirship is an inalienable matter of blood descent, and not of worldly inheritance. No woman can ever be an heir-apparent. Though now {488} the number of points on a label is a matter of rule, this is far from having been always the case, and prior to the Stuart period no deductions can be drawn with certainty from the number of the points in use. It seems a very great pity that no warrants were issued for the children of the then Duke of York during the lifetime of Queen Victoria, as labels for great-grandchildren would have been quite unique.

If the eldest son succeeds through the death of his mother to her arms and quarterings during his father's lifetime, he must be careful that the label which he bears as heir-apparent to his father's arms does not cross the quartering of his mother's arms.

If his father bears a quarterly shield, the label is so placed that it shall apparently debruise all his father's quarterings, i.e. in a shield quarterly of four the label would be placed in the centre chief point, the centre file of the label being upon the palar line, and the other files in the first and second quarters respectively, whilst the colour would usually depend, as has been above indicated, upon the tinctures of the pronominal arms. Due regard, however, must be had that a label of gules, for example, is not placed on a field of gules. A parti-coloured label is not nowadays permissible, though instances of its use can occasionally be met with in early examples. Supposing the field of the first quarter is argent, and that of the second azure, in all probability the best colour for the label would be gules, and indeed gules is the colour most frequently met with for use in this purpose.

If the father possess the quarterly coat of, say, four quarterings, which are debruised by a label by the heir-apparent, and the mother die, and the heir-apparent succeed to her arms, he would of course, after his father's death, arrange his mother's quarterings with these, placing his father's pronominal arms 1 and 4, the father's quartering in the second quarter, and the mother's arms in the third quarter. This arrangement, however, is not permissible during his father's lifetime, because otherwise his label in chief would be held to debruise all the four coats, and the only method in which such a combination could be properly displayed in the lifetime of the father but after the death of his mother is to place the father's arms in the grand quartering in the first and fourth quarters, each being debruised by the label, and the mother's in the grand quartering in the second and third quarters without any interference by the label.

The other marks of difference are: For the second son a crescent; for the third son a mullet; for the fourth son a martlet; for the fifth son an annulet; for the sixth son a fleur-de-lis; for the seventh son a rose; for the eighth son a cross moline; for the ninth son a double quatrefoil (Fig. 699).

Of these the first six are given in BOSSEWELL'S "Workes of {489} Armorie" (1572), and the author adds: "If there be any more than six brethren the devise or assignment of further difference only appertaineth to the kingis of armes especially when they visite their severall provinces; and not to the father of the children to give them what difference he list, as some without authoritie doe allege."

The position for a mark of difference is in the centre chief point, though it is not incorrect (and many such instances will be found) for it to be charged on a chevron or fess, in the centre point. This, however, is not a very desirable position for it in a simple coat of arms. The second son of the second son places a crescent upon a crescent, the third son a mullet on a crescent, the fourth son a martlet on a crescent, and so on; and there is an instance in the Visitation of London in which the arms of Cokayne appear with three crescents one upon another: this instance has been already referred to on page 344. Of course, when the English system is carried to these lengths it becomes absurd, because the crescents charged one upon each other become so small as to be practically indistinguishable. There are, however, very few cases in which such a display would be correct--as will be presently explained. This difficulty, which looms large in theory, amounts to very little in the practical use of armory, but it nevertheless is the one outstanding objection to the English system of difference marks. It is constantly held up to derision by those people who are unaware of the next rule upon the subject, which is, that as soon as a quartering comes into the possession of a cadet branch--which quartering is not enjoyed by the head of the house--all necessity for any marks of difference at all is considered to be ended, provided that that quartering is always displayed--and that cadet branch then begins afresh from that generation to redifference.

Now there are few English families in whose pedigree during three or four generations one marriage is not with an heiress in blood, so that this theoretical difficulty very quickly disappears.

No doubt there is always an inducement to retain the quarterings of an historical or illustrious house which may have been brought in in the past, but if the honours and lands brought in with that quartering are wholly enjoyed by the head of the house, it becomes, from a practical point of view, mere affectation to prefer that quartering to another (brought in subsequently) of a family, the entire representation of which belongs to the junior branch and not to the senior. If {490} the old idea of confining a shield to four quarters be borne in mind, concurrently with the necessity--for purposes of distinction--of introducing new quarterings, the new quarterings take the place of the old, the use of which is left to the senior branch. Under such circumstances, and the regular practice of them, the English system is seldom wanting, and it at once wipes out the difficulty which is made much of--that under the English system there is no way of indicating the difference between the arms of uncle and nephew. If the use of impalements is also adhered to, the difficulty practically vanishes.

To difference a single coat the mark of difference is placed in the centre chief point; to difference a quarterly coat of four quarters the same position on the shield is most generally used, the mark being placed over the palar line, though occasionally the difference mark is placed, and not incorrectly, in the centre of the quarterings. A coat of six quarters, however, is always differenced on the fess line of partition, the mark being placed in the fess point, because if placed in the centre chief point it would only appear as a difference upon the second quartering, so that on all shields of six or more quarterings the difference mark must be placed on some line of partition at the nearest possible point to the true centre fess point of the escutcheon. It is then understood to difference the whole of the quarterings over which it is displayed, but directly a quartering is introduced which has been inherited subsequently to the cadency which produced the difference mark, that difference mark must be either discarded or transferred to the first quartering only.

The use of these difference marks is optional. Neither officially nor unofficially is any attempt made to enforce their use in England--they are left to the pleasure and discretion of the bearers, though it is a well-understood and well-accepted position that, unless differenced by quarterings or impalement, it is neither courteous nor proper for a cadet to display the arms of the head of his house: beyond this, the matter is usually left to good taste.

There is, however, one position in which the use of difference marks is compulsory. If under a Royal Licence, or other exemplification--for instance, the creation of a peerage--a difference mark is painted upon the arms, or even if an exemplification of the arms differenced is placed at the head of an official record of pedigree, those arms would not subsequently be exemplified, or their use officially admitted, without the difference mark that has been recorded with them.

The differencing of crests for cadency is very rare. Theoretically, these should be marked equally with the shield, and when arms are exemplified officially under the circumstances above referred to, crest, {491}

{492} supporters, and shield are all equally differenced, but the difficulty of adding difference mark on difference mark when no marriage or heiress can ever bring in any alteration to the crest is very generally recognised and admitted, even officially, and it is rare indeed to come across a crest carrying more than a single difference mark.

The grant of an augmentation to any cadet obviates the slightest necessity for any further use of difference marks inherited before the grant.

There are no difference marks whatever for daughters, there being in English common law no seniority between the different daughters of one man. They succeed equally, whether heiresses or not, to the arms of their father for use during their lifetimes, and they must bear them on their own lozenges or impaled on the shields of their husbands, with the difference marks which their father needed to use. It would be permissible, however, to discard these difference marks of their fathers if subsequently to his death his issue succeeded to the position of head of the family. For instance, suppose the daughters of the younger son of an earl are under consideration. They would bear upon lozenges the arms of their father, which would be those of the earl, charged with the mullet or crescent which their father had used as a younger son. If by the extinction of issue the brother of these daughters succeed to the earldom, they would no longer be required to bear their father's difference mark.

There are no marks of difference between illegitimate children. In the eye of the law an illegitimate person has no relatives, and stands alone. Supposing it be subsequently found that a marriage ceremony had been illegal, the whole issue of that marriage becomes of course illegitimate. As such, no one of them is entitled to bear arms. A Royal Licence, and exemplification following thereupon, is necessary for each single one. Of these exemplifications there is one case on record in which I think nine follow each other on successive pages of one of the Grant Books: all differ in some way--usually in the colour of the bordure; but the fact that there are illegitimate brothers of the same parentage does not prevent the descendants of any daughter quartering the differenced coat exemplified to her. As far as heraldic law is concerned, she is the heiress of herself, representing only herself, and consequently her heir quarters her arms.

Marks of difference are never added to an exemplification following upon a Royal Licence after illegitimacy. Marks of difference are to indicate cadency, and there is no cadency vested in a person of illegitimate birth--their right to the arms proceeding only from the regrant of them in the exemplification. What is added in lieu is the mark of distinction to indicate the bastardy. {493}

{494}

The method of differencing the English Royal Arms is quite unique, and has no relation to the method ordinarily in use in this country for the arms of subjects. The Royal Arms are not personal. They are the sovereign arms of dominion, indicating the sovereignty enjoyed by the person upon the throne. Consequently they are in no degree hereditary, and from the earliest times, certainly since the reign of Edward I., the right to bear the undifferenced arms has been confined exclusively to the sovereign upon the throne. In early times there were two methods employed, namely, the use of the bordure and of varieties of the label, the label of the heir-apparent to the English throne being originally of azure. The arms of Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward I., were differenced by a bordure argent; his elder brother, Thomas de Brotherton, having had a label of three points argent; whilst the eldest son, Edward II., as Prince of Wales used a label of three points azure. From that period to the end of the Tudor period the use of labels and bordures seems to have continued concurrently, some members of the Royal Family using one, some the other, though there does not appear to have been any precise rules governing a choice between the two. When Edward III. claimed the throne of France and quartered the arms of that country with those of England, of course a portion of the field then became azure, and a blue label upon a blue field was no longer possible. The heir-apparent therefore differenced his shield by the plain label of three points argent, and this has ever since, down to the present day, continued to be the "difference" used by the heir-apparent to the English throne. A label of gules upon the gules quartering of England was equally impossible, and consequently from that period all labels used by any member of the Royal Family have been argent, charged with different objects, these being frequently taken from the arms of some female ancestor. Figs. 700 to 730 are a somewhat extensive collection of variations of the Royal Arms.

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., bore: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, and on each point a canton gules.

The use of the bordure as a legitimate difference upon the Royal Arms ceased about the Tudor period, and differencing between members of the Royal Family is now exclusively done by means of these labels. A few cases of bordures to denote illegitimacy can, however, be found. The method of deciding these labels is for separate warrants under the hand and seal of the sovereign to be issued to the different members of the Royal Family, assigning to each a certain coronet, and the label to be borne over the Royal Arms, crest, and supporters. These warrants are personal to those for whom they are {495}

{496} issued, and are not hereditary. Of late their use, or perhaps may be their issue, has not been quite so particularly conformed to as is desirable, and at the present time the official records show the arms of their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and the Queen of Norway, still bearing the label of five points indicative of their position as grandchildren of the sovereign, which of course they were when the warrants were issued in the lifetime of the late Queen Victoria. In spite of the fact that the warrants have no hereditary limitation, I am only aware of two modern instances in which a warrant has been issued to the son of a cadet of the Royal House who had previously received a warrant. One of these was the late Duke of Cambridge. The warrant was issued to him in his father's lifetime, and to the label previously assigned to his father a second label of three points gules, to be borne directly below the other, was added. The other case was that of his cousin, afterwards Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover. In his case the second label, also gules, was charged with the white horse of Hanover.

The label of the eldest son of the heir-apparent to the English throne is not, as might be imagined, a plain label of five points, but the plain label of three points, the centre point only being charged. The late Duke of Clarence charged the centre point of his label of {497} three points with a cross couped gules. After his death the Duke of York relinquished the label of five points which he had previously borne, receiving one of three, the centre point charged with an anchor. In every other case all of the points are charged. The following examples of the labels in use at the moment will show how the system now exists:--

Prince of Wales.--A label of three points argent.

Princess Royal (Louise, Duchess of Fife).--A label of five points argent, charged on the centre and outer points with a cross of St. George gules, and on the two others with a thistle proper.

Princess Victoria.--A label of five points argent, charged with three roses and two crosses gules.

Princess Maud (H.M. The Queen of Norway).--A label of five points argent, charged with three hearts and two crosses gules.

The Duke of Edinburgh (Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and on each of the others an anchor azure. His son, the hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who predeceased his father, bore a label of five points, the first, third, and fifth each charged with a cross gules, and the second and fourth each with an anchor azure (Fig. 731).

The Duke of Connaught.--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points with a fleur-de-lis azure.

The late Princess Royal (German Empress).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others with a cross gules.

The late Grand Duchess of Hesse.--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others with an ermine spot sable.

Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein.--A label of three points, the centre point charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points with a rose gules.

Princess Louise (Duchess of Argyll).--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a rose, and each of the other two with a canton gules.

Princess Henry of Battenberg.--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a heart, and each of the other two with a rose gules.

The late Duke of Albany.--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the other two with a heart gules. {498}

The Dukes of Cambridge.--The first Duke had a label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the other two with two hearts in pale gules. The warrant to the late Duke assigned him the same label with the addition of a second label, plain, of three points gules, to be borne below the former label.

The first Duke of Cumberland.--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a fleur-de-lis azure, and each of the other two points with a cross of St. George gules.

Of the foregoing recently assigned labels all are borne over the plain English arms (1 and 4 England, 2 Scotland, 3 Ireland), charged with the escutcheon of Saxony, except those of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Cambridge, and Cumberland. In the two latter cases the labels are borne over the latest version of the arms of King George III., i.e. with the inescutcheon of Hanover, but, of course, neither the electoral bonnet nor the later crown which surmounted the inescutcheon of Hanover was made use of, and the smaller inescutcheon bearing the crown of Charlemagne was also omitted for the children of George III., except in the case of the Prince of Wales, who bore the plain inescutcheon of gules, but without the crown of Charlemagne thereupon.

The labels for the other sons and daughters of King George III. were as follows:--

The Duke of York.--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules. The Duke of York bore upon the inescutcheon of Hanover an inescutcheon argent (in the place occupied in the Royal Arms by the inescutcheon charged with the crown of Charlemagne) charged with a wheel of six spokes gules, for the Bishopric of Osnaburgh, which he possessed.

The Duke of Clarence (afterwards William IV.).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and each of the others with an anchor erect azure.

The Duke of Kent had his label charged with a cross gules between two fleurs-de-lis azure.

The Duke of Sussex.--The label argent charged with two hearts in pale gules in the centre point between two crosses gules.

The Princess Royal (Queen of Würtemberg).--A rose between two crosses gules.

The Princess Augusta.--A like label, charged with a rose gules between two ermine spots.

The Princess Elizabeth (Princess of Hesse-Homburg).--A like label charged with a cross between two roses gules.

The Princess Mary (Duchess of Gloucester).--A like label, charged with a rose between two cantons gules. {499}

The Princess Sophia.--A like label, charged with a heart between two roses gules.

The Princess Amelia.--A like label, charged with a rose between two hearts gules.

The Duke of Gloucester (brother of George III.).--A label of five points argent, charged with a fleur-de-lis azure between four crosses gules. His son (afterwards Duke of Gloucester) bore an additional plain label of three points during the lifetime of his father.

The Royal labels are placed across the shield, on the crest, and on each of the supporters. The crest stands upon and is crowned with a coronet identical with the circlet of any coronet of rank assigned in the same patent; the lion supporter is crowned and the unicorn supporter is gorged with a similar coronet. It may perhaps be of interest to note that no badges and no motto are ever now assigned in these Royal Warrants except in the case of the Prince of Wales.

F.-M. H.S.H. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the Consort of H.R.H. the Princess Charlotte (only child of George IV.), received by warrant dated April 7, 1818, the right "to use and bear the Royal Arms (without the inescocheon of Charlemagne's crown, and without the Hanoverian Royal crown) differenced with a label of five points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, quarterly with the arms of his illustrious House ['Barry of ten sable and or, a crown of rue in bend vert'], the Royal Arms in the first and fourth quarters."

By Queen Victoria's desire this precedent was followed in the case of the late Prince Consort, the label in his case being of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and, by a curious coincidence, the arms of his illustrious House, with which the Royal Arms were quartered, were again the arms of Saxony, these appearing in the second and third quarters.

Quite recently a Royal Warrant has been issued for H.M. Queen Alexandra. This assigns, upon a single shield within the Garter, the undifferenced arms of His Majesty impaled with the undifferenced arms of Denmark. The shield is surmounted by the Royal crown. The supporters are: (dexter) the lion of England, and (sinister) a savage wreathed about the temples and loins with oak and supporting in his exterior hand a club all proper. This sinister supporter is taken from the Royal Arms of Denmark.

Abroad there is now no equivalent whatever to our methods of differencing the Royal Arms. An official certificate was issued to me recently from Denmark of the undifferenced Royal Arms of Denmark certified as correct for the "Princes and Princesses" of that country. But the German Crown Prince bears his shield within a bordure gules, and anciently in France (from which country the English system was {500} very probably originally derived) the differencing of the Royal French Arms for the younger branches seems to have been carefully attended to, as has been already specified.

Differencing in Scotland is carried out on an entirely different basis from differencing in England. In Scotland the idea is still rigidly preserved and adhered to that the coat of arms of a family belongs only to the head of the family for the time being, and the terms of a Scottish grant are as follows: "Know ye therefore that we have devised and do by these presents assign ratify and confirm to the said ---- and his descendants with such congruent differences as may hereafter be matriculated for them the following ensigns armorial." Under the accepted interpretation of Scottish armorial law, whilst the inherent gentility conferred by a patent of arms is not denied to cadets, no right to make use of arms is conceded to them until such time as they shall elect to matriculate the arms of their ancestor in their own names. This point has led to a much purer system of heraldry in Scotland than in England, and there is far less heraldic abuse in that country as a result, because the differences are decided not haphazardly by the user himself, as is the case in England, but by a competent officer of arms. Moreover the constant occasions of matriculation bring the arms frequently under official review. There is no fixed rule which decides ipse facto what difference shall be borne, and consequently this decision has retained in the hands of the heraldic executive an amount of control which they still possess far exceeding that of the executive in England, and perhaps the best way in which to state the rules which hold good will be to reprint a portion of one of the Rhind Lectures, delivered by Sir James Balfour Paul, which is devoted to the point:--

"I have said that in Scotland the principle which limited the number of paternal coats led to a careful differencing of these coats as borne by the junior branches of the family. Though the English system was sometimes used, it has never obtained to any great extent in Scotland, the practice here being generally to difference by means of a bordure, in which way many more generations are capable of being distinguished than is possible by the English method. The weak point of the Scottish system is that, whilst the general idea is good, there is no definite rule whereby it can be carried out on unchanging lines; much is left to the discretion of the authorities.

"As a general rule, it may be stated that the second son bears a plain bordure of the tincture of the principal charge in the shield, and his younger brothers also bear plain bordures of varying tinctures. In the next generation the eldest son of the second son would bear his father's coat and bordure without change; the second son would have the bordure engrailed; the third, invected; the fourth, indented, {501} and so on, the other sons of the younger sons in this generation differencing their father's bordures in the same way. The junior members of the next generation might have their bordures parted per pale, the following generations having their bordures parted per fess and per saltire, per cross or quarterly, gyronny or compony, that is, divided into alternate spaces of metal or colour in a single trace--this, however, being often in Scotland a mark of illegitimacy--counter-compone or a similar pattern in two tracts, or chequy with three or more tracts.

"You will see that these modifications of the simple bordure afford a great variety of differences, and when they are exhausted the expedient can then be resorted to of placing on the bordures charges taken from other coats, often from those of a maternal ancestor; or they may be arbitrarily assigned to denote some personal characteristic of the bearer, as in the case of James Maitland, Major in the Scots regiment of Foot Guards, who carries the dismembered lion of his family within a bordure wavy azure charged with eight hand grenades or, significant, I presume, of his military profession.

"You will observe that, with all these varieties of differencing we have mentioned, the younger branches descending from the original eldest son of the parent house are still left unprovided with marks of cadency. These, however, can be arranged for by taking the ordinary which appears in their father's arms and modifying its boundary lines. Say the original coat was 'argent, a chevron gules,' the second son of the eldest son would have the chevron engrailed, but without any bordure; the third, invected, and so on; and the next generations the systems of bordures accompanying the modified chevron would go on as before. And when all these methods are exhausted, differences can still be made in a variety of ways, e.g. by charging the ordinary with similar charges in a similar manner to the bordure as Erskine of Shielfield, a cadet of Balgownie, who bore: 'Argent, on a pale sable, a cross crosslet fitchée or within a bordure azure'; or by the introduction of an ordinary into a coat which had not one previously, a bend or the ribbon (which is a small bend) being a favourite ordinary to use for this purpose. Again, we occasionally find a change of tincture of the field of the shield used to denote cadency.

"There are other modes of differencing which need not be alluded to in detail, but I may say that on analysing the earlier arms in the Lyon Register, I find that the bordure is by far the most common method of indicating cadency, being used in no less than 1080 cases. The next most popular way is by changing the boundary lines of an ordinary, which is done in 563 shields; 233 cadets difference their arms by the insertion of a smaller charge on the ordinary and 195 on {502} the shield. A change of tincture, including counterchanging, is carried out in 155 coats, and a canton is added in 70 cases, while there are 350 coats in which two or more of the above methods are used. From these figures, which are approximately correct, you will see the relative frequency of the various modes of differencing. You will also note that the original coat of a family can be differenced in a great many ways so as to show the connection of cadets with the parent house. The drawback to the system is that heralds have never arrived at a uniform treatment so as to render it possible to calculate the exact relationship of the cadets. Much is left, as I said, to the discretion of the officer granting the arms; but still it gives considerable assistance in determining the descent of a family."

The late Mr. Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute, who was an able herald, particularly in matters relating to Scotland, had elaborated a definite system of these bordures for differencing which would have done much to simplify Scottish cadency. Its weak point was obviously this, that it could only be applied to new matriculations of arms by cadets; and so, if adopted as a definite and unchangeable matter of rule, it might have occasioned doubt and misunderstanding in future times with regard to many important Scottish coats now existing, without reference to Mr. Stodart's system. But the scheme elaborated by Mr. Stodart is now accepted as the broad basis of the Scottish system for matriculations (Fig. 732).

In early Scottish seals the bordures are to so large an extent engrailed as to make it appear that the later and present rule, which gives the plain bordure to immediate cadets, was not fully recognised or adopted. Bordures charged appear at a comparatively early date in Scotland. The bordure compony in Scotland and the bordure wavy in England, which are now used to signify illegitimacy, will be further considered in a subsequent chapter, but neither one nor the other originally carried any such meaning. The doubtful legitimacy of the Avondale and Ochiltree Stewarts, who bore the bordure compony in Scotland, along with its use by the Beauforts in England, has tended latterly to bring that difference into disrepute in the cadency of lawful sons--yet some of the bearers of that bordure during the first twenty years of the Lyon Register were unquestionably legitimate, whilst others, as SCOTT of Gorrenberry and PATRICK SINCLAIR of Ulbester, were illegitimate, or at best only legitimated. The light in which the bordure compony had come to be regarded is shown by a Royal Warrant granted in 1679 to JOHN LUNDIN of that Ilk, allowing him to drop the coat which his family had hitherto carried, and, as descended of a natural son of WILLIAM THE LION, to bear the arms of Scotland within a bordure compony argent and azure. {503}

The bordure counter-compony is assigned to fifteen persons, none of them, it is believed, of illegitimate descent, and some expressly said to be "lineallie and lawfulie descended" from the ancestor whose arms they bore thus differenced. The idea of this bordure having been at any time a mark of bastardy is a very modern error, arising from a confusion with the bordure compony.

In conclusion, attention needs to be pointedly drawn to the fact that all changes in arms are not due to cadency, nor is it safe always to presume cadency from proved instances of change. Instead of merely detailing isolated instances of variation in a number of different families, the matter may be better illustrated by closely following the successive variations in the same family, and an instructive instance is met with in the case of the arms of the family of Swinton of that Ilk. This is peculiarly instructive, because at no point in the descent covered by the arms referred to is there any doubt or question as to the fact of legitimate descent.

Claiming as they do a male descent and inheritance from Liulf the son of Edulf, Vicecomes of Northumbria, whose possession before {504} 1100 of the lands of Swinton is the earliest contemporary evidence which has come down to us of landowning by a Scottish subject, it is unfortunate that we cannot with authority date their armorial ensigns before the later half of the thirteenth century. Charters there are in plenty. Out of the twenty-three earliest Scottish writings given in the National MSS. of Scotland, nine, taken from the Coldingham documents preserved at Durham, refer to the village and lands of Swinton. Among these are two confirmations by David I., i.e. before 1153, of Swinton "in hereditate sibi et heredibus" to "meo militi Hernulfo" or "Arnolto isti meo Militi," the first of the family to follow the Norman fashion, and adopt the territorial designation of de Swinton; while at Durham and elsewhere, Cospatric de Swinton and his son Alan and grandson Alan appear more than eighty times in charters before 1250.

But it is not till we come to c. 1271 that we find a Swinton seal still attached to a charter. This is a grant by a third Alan of the Kirk croft of Lower Swinton to God and the blessed Cuthbert and the blessed Ebba and the Prior and Monks of Coldingham. The seal is of a very early form (Fig. 733), and may perhaps have belonged to the father and grandfather of the particular Alan who uses it.

Of the Henry de Swinton who came next, and who swore fealty to Edward the First of England at Berwick in 1296, and of yet a fourth Alan, no seals are known. These were turbulent days throughout Scotland: but then we find a distinct advance; a shield upon a diapered ground, and upon it the single boar has given place to the three boars' heads which afterwards became so common in Scotland. Nisbet lends his authority to the tradition that all the families of Border birth who carried them--Gordon, Nisbet, Swinton, Redpath, Dunse, he mentions, and he might have added others--were originally of one stock, and if so, the probability must be that the breed sprung from Swinton.

This seal (Fig. 734) was put by a second Henry de Swynton to one of the family charters, probably of the date of 1378, which have lately been placed for safe keeping in the Register House in Edinburgh.

His successor, Sir John, the hero of Noyon in Picardy, of Otterburn, and Homildon, was apparently the first of the race to use {505} supporters. His seal (Fig. 735) belongs to the second earliest of the Douglas charters preserved at Drumlanrig. Its date is 1389, and Sir John de Swintoun is described as Dominus de Mar, a title he bore by right of his marriage with Margaret, Countess of Douglas and Mar. This probably also accounts for his coronet, and it is interesting to note that the helmet, coronet, and crest are the exact counterpart of those on the Garter plate of Ralph, Lord Basset, in St. George's Chapel at Windsor. It is possibly more than a coincidence, for Froissart mentions them both as fighting in France ten to twenty years earlier.

Of his son, the second Sir John, "Lord of that Ilk," we have no seal. His lance it was that overthrew Thomas, Duke of Clarence, the brother of Henry V., at Beaugé in 1421, and he fell, a young man, three years later with the flower of the Scottish army at Verneuil; but in 1475 his son, a third Sir John, uses the identical crest and shield which his descendants carry to this day (Fig. 736). John had become a common name in the family, and the same or a similar seal did duty for the next three generations; but in 1598 we find the great-great-grandson, Robert Swinton of that Ilk, who represented Berwickshire in the first regularly constituted Parliament of Scotland, altering the character of the boars' heads (Fig. 737). He would also appear to have placed upon the chevron something which is difficult to decipher, but is probably the rose so borne by the Hepburns, his second wife having been a daughter of Sir Patrick Hepburn of Whitecastle.

Whatever the charge was, it disappeared from the shield (Fig. 738) erected on the outer wall of Swinton Church by his second son and eventual heir, Sir Alexander, also member for his native county; but {506} the boars' heads are turned the other way, perhaps in imitation of those above the very ancient effigy of the first Sir Alan inside the church.

Sir Alexander's son, John Swinton, "Laird Swinton" Carlyle calls him, wrecked the family fortunes. According to Bishop Burnet he was "the man of all Scotland most trusted and employed by Cromwell," and he died a Quaker, excommunicated and forfeited. To the circumstance that when, in 1672, the order went out that all arms were to be officially recorded, he was a broken man under sentence that his arms should be "laceret and delete out of the Heralds' Books," we probably owe it that until of late years no Swinton arms appeared on the Lyon Register.

Then to come to less stirring times, and turn to book-plates. His son, yet another Sir John of that Ilk, in whose favour the forfeiture was rescinded, sat for Berwickshire in the last Parliament of Scotland and the first of Great Britain. His bookplate (Fig. 739) is one of the earliest Scottish dated plates.

His grandson, Captain Archibald Swinton of Kimmerghame, county Berwick (Fig. 740), was an ardent book collector up to his death in 1804, and Archibald's great-grandson, Captain George C. Swinton (Fig. 741), walked as March Pursuivant in the procession in Westminster Abbey at the coronation of King Edward the Seventh of {507} England in 1902, and smote on the gate when that same Edward as First of Scotland claimed admission to his castle of Edinburgh in 1903.

The arms as borne to-day by the head of the family, John Edulf Blagrave Swinton of Swinton Bank, a lieutenant in the Lothians and Berwickshire Imperial Yeomanry, are as given (Plate IV.). {508}

XXXII. MARKS OF BASTARDY

It has been remarked that the knowledge of "the man in the street" is least incorrect when he knows nothing. Probably the only heraldic knowledge that a large number possess is summed up in the assertion that the heraldic sign of illegitimacy is the "bar sinister."

No doubt it is to the novelists--who, seeking to touch lightly upon an unpleasant subject, have ignorantly adopted a French colloquialism--that we must attribute a great deal of the misconception which exists concerning illegitimacy and its heraldic marks of indication. I assert most unhesitatingly that there are not now and never have been any unalterable laws as to what these marks should be, and the colloquialism which insists upon the "bar sinister" is a curiously amusing example of an utter misnomer. To any one with the most rudimentary knowledge of heraldry it must plainly be seen to be radically impossible to depict a bar sinister, for the simple reason that the bar is neither dexter nor sinister. It is utterly impossible to draw a bar sinister--such a thing does not exist. But the assertion of many writers with a knowledge of armory that "bar sinister" is a mistake for "bend sinister" is also somewhat misleading, because the real mistake lies in the spelling of the term. The "barre sinistre" is merely the French translation of bend sinister, the French word "barre" meaning a bend. The French "barre" is not the English "bar."

In order to properly understand the true significance of the marks of illegitimacy, it is necessary that the attempt should be made to transplant oneself into the environment when the laws and rules of heraldry were in the making. At that period illegitimacy was of little if any account. It has not debarred the succession of some of our own sovereigns, although, from the earliest times, the English have always been more prudish upon the point than other nations. In Ireland, even so late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it is a striking genealogical difficulty to decide in many noble pedigrees which if any of the given sons of any person were legitimate, and which of the ladies of his household, if any, might be legally termed his wife. In Scotland we find the same thing, though perhaps it is not quite so {509} blatant to so late a date, but considering what are and have been the Scottish laws of marriage, it is the fact or otherwise of marriage which has to be ascertained; and though in England the legal status was recognised from an earlier period, the social status of the illegitimate offspring of a given man depended little upon the legal legitimacy of birth, but rather upon the amount of recognition the bastard received from his father. If a man had an unquestionably legitimate son, that son undoubtedly succeeded; but if he had not, any technical stain upon the birth of the others had little effect in preventing their succession. A study of the succession to the Barony of Meinill clearly shows that the illegitimate son of the second Lord Meinill succeeded to the estates and peerage of his father in preference to his legitimate uncle. There are many other analogous cases. And when the Church juggled at its pleasure with the sacrament of marriage--dispensing and annulling or recognising marriages for reasons which we nowadays can only term whimsical--small wonder is it that the legal fact, though then admitted, had little of the importance which we now give to it. When the actual fact was so little more than a matter at the personal pleasure of the person most concerned, it would be ridiculous to suppose that any perpetuation of a mere advertisement of the fact would be considered necessary, whilst the fact itself was so often ignored; so that until comparatively recent times the Crown certainly never attempted to enforce any heraldic marks of illegitimacy. Rather were these enforced by the legitimate descendants if and when such descendants existed.

The point must have first arisen when there were both legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a given person, and it was desired to make record of the true line in which land or honours should descend. To effect this purpose, the arms of the illegitimate son were made to carry some charge or alteration to show that there was some reason which debarred inheritance by their users, whilst there remained those entitled to bear the arms without the mark of distinction. But be it noted that this obligation existed equally on the legitimate cadets of a family, and in the earliest periods of heraldry there is little or no distinction either in the marks employed or in the character of the marks, which can be drawn between mere marks of cadency and marks of illegitimacy. Until a comparatively recent period it is absolutely unsafe to use these marks as signifying or proving either legitimate cadency or illegitimacy. The same mark stood for both, the only object which any distinctive change accomplished, being the distinction which it was necessary to draw between those who owned the right to the undifferenced arms, and owned the land, and those who did not. The object was to safeguard the right of the real {510} possessors and their true heirs, and not to penalise the others. There was no particular mark either for cadency or for illegitimacy, the distinctions made being dictated by what seemed the most suitable and distinctive mark applicable to the arms under consideration.

When that much has been thoroughly grasped, one gets a more accurate understanding of the subject. One other point has to be borne in mind (and to the present generation, which knows so well how extensively arms have been improperly assumed, the statement may seem startling), and that is, that the use of arms was formerly evidence of pedigree. As late as the beginning of the nineteenth century evidence of this character was submitted to the Committee of Privileges at the hearing of a Peerage case. The evidence was admitted for that purpose, though doubt (in that case very properly) was thrown upon its value.

Therefore, in view of the two foregoing facts, there can be very little doubt that the use of armorial marks of bastardy was not invented or instituted, nor were these marks enforced, as punishment or as a disgrace.

It is a curious instance how a careful study of words and terms employed will often afford either a clue or confirmation, when the true meaning of the term has long been overlooked.

The official term for a mark of cadency is a "difference" mark, i.e. it was a mark to show the difference between one member of a family and another. The mark used to signify a lack of blood relationship, and a mark used to signify illegitimacy are each termed a "mark of distinction," i.e. a mark that shall make something plainly "distinct." What is that something? The fact that the use of the arms is not evidence of descent through which heirship can be claimed or proved. This, by the way, is a patent example of the advantage of adherence to precedent.

The inevitable conclusion is that a bastard was originally only required to mark his shield sufficiently that it should be distinctly apparent that heirship would never accrue. The arms had to be distinct from those borne by those members of the family upon whom heirship might devolve. The social position of a bastard as "belonging" to a family was pretty generally conceded, therefore he carried their arms, sufficiently marked to show he was not in the line of succession.

This being accepted, one at once understands the great variety of the marks which have been employed. These answered the purpose of distinction, and nothing more was demanded or necessary. Consequently a recapitulation of marks, of which examples can be quoted, would be largely a list of isolated instances, and as such they are useless for the purposes of deduction in any attempt to arrive at a correct conclusion as to what the ancient rules were. In brief, there were no {511} rules until the eighteenth, or perhaps even until the nineteenth century. The only rule was that the arms must be sufficiently marked in some way. This is borne out by the dictum of Menêstrier.

Except the label, which has been elsewhere referred to, the earliest marks of either cadency or illegitimacy for which accepted use can be found are the bend and the bordure; but the bend for the purpose of illegitimacy seems to be the earlier, and a bend superimposed over a shield remained a mark of illegitimate cadency until a comparatively late period. This bend as a difference naturally was originally depicted as a bend dexter, and as a mark of legitimate cadency is found in the arms of the younger son of Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, before he succeeded his elder brother.

There are scores of other similar instances which a little research will show. Whether the term "left-handed marriage" is the older, and the sinister bend is derived therefrom, or whether the slang term is derived from the sinister bend, it is perhaps not necessary to inquire. But there is no doubt that from an early period the bend of cadency, when such cadency was illegitimate, is frequently met with in the sinister form. But concurrently with such usage instances are found in which the dexter bend was used for the same purpose, and it is very plainly evident that it was never at that date looked upon as a penalty, but was used merely as a distinction, or for the purpose of showing that the wearer was not the head of his house or in possession of the lordship. The territorial idea of the nature of arms, which has been alluded to in the chapter upon marks of cadency, should be borne in mind in coming to a conclusion.

Soon after the recognition of the bend as a mark of illegitimacy we come across the bordure; but there is some confusion with this, bordures of all kinds being used indiscriminately to denote both legitimate and illegitimate cadency. There are countless other forms of marking illegitimacy, and it is impossible to attempt to summarise them, and absolutely impossible to draw conclusions as to any family from marks upon its arms when this point is under discussion. To give a list of these instances would rather seem an attempt to deduce a rule or rules upon the point, so I say at once that there was no recognised mark, and any plain distinction seems to have been accepted as sufficient; and no distinction whatever was made when the illegitimate son, either from failure of legitimate issue or other reason, succeeded to the lands and honours of his father. Out of the multitude of marks, the bend, and subsequently the bend sinister, emerge as most frequently in use, and finally the bend sinister exclusively; so that it has come to be considered, and perhaps correctly as regards one period, that its use was equivalent to a mark of illegitimacy in England. {512}

But there has always remained to the person of bastard descent the right of discarding the bastardised coat, and adopting a new coat of arms, the only requirement as to the new coat being that it shall be so distinct from the old one as not to be liable to confusion therewith. And it is a moot point whether or not a large proportion of the instances which are tabulated in most heraldic works as examples of marks of bastardy are anything whatever of the kind. My own opinion is that many are not, and that it is a mistake to so consider them; the true explanation undoubtedly in some--and outside the Royal Family probably in most--being that they are new coats of arms adopted as new coats of arms, doubtless bearing relation to the old family coat, but sufficiently distinguished therefrom to rank as new arms, and were never intended to be taken as, and never were bastardised examples of formerly existing coats. It is for this reason that I have refrained from giving any extensive list such as is to be found in most other treatises on heraldry, for all that can be said for such lists is that they are lists of the specific arms of specific bastards, which is a very different matter from a list of heraldic marks of illegitimacy.

Another objection to the long lists which most heraldic works give of early instances of marks of bastardy as data for deduction lies in the fact that most are instances of the illegitimate children of Royal personages. It is singularly unsafe to draw deductions, to be applied to the arms of others, from the Royal Arms, for these generally have laws unto themselves.

The bend sinister in its bare simplicity, as a mark of illegitimacy, was seldom used, the more frequent form being the sinister bendlet, or even the diminutive of that, the cottise. There is no doubt, of course, that when a sinister bend or bendlet debruises another coat that that is a bastardised version of an older coat, but examples can be found of the sinister bend as a charge which has no reference whatever to illegitimacy. Two instances that come to mind, which can be found by reference to any current peerage, are the arms of Shiffner and Burne-Jones. Certainly in these cases I know of no illegitimacy, and neither coat is a bastardised version of an older existing coat. Anciently the bendlet was drawn across arms and quarterings, and an example of a coat of arms of some number of quarterings debruised for an illegitimate family is found in the registration of a Talbot pedigree in one of the Visitation Books. As a mark of distinction upon arms the bend sinister for long past has fallen out of use, though for the purpose of differencing crests a bendlet wavy sinister is still made use of, and will be again presently referred to.

Next to the bend comes the bordure. Bordures of all kinds were used for the purposes of cadency from practically the earliest periods {513} of heraldic differencing. But they were used indiscriminately, as has been already stated, both for legitimate and illegitimate cadency. John of Gaunt, as is well known, was the father of Henry IV. and the ancestor of Henry VII., the former being the issue of his legitimate wife, the latter coming from a son who, as one of the old chroniclers puts it, "was of double advowtrie begotten." But, as every one knows, John of Gaunt's children by Catherine Roet or Swynford were legitimated by Act of Parliament, the Act of Parliament not excepting the succession to the Throne, a disability later introduced in Letters Patent of the Crown when giving a subsequent confirmation of the Act, but which, nevertheless, they could not overrule. But taking the sons of the latter family as legitimate, which (whatever may have been the moral aspect of the case) they were undoubtedly in the eyes of the common law after the passing of the Act referred to, they existed concurrently with the undoubtedly senior descendants of the first marriage of John of Gaunt with Blanche of Lancaster, and it was necessary--whether they were legitimate or not--to distinguish the arms of the junior from the senior branch. The result was that as legitimate cadets, and not as bastards, the arms of John of Gaunt were differenced for the line of the Dukes of Somerset by the addition of the bordure compony argent and azure--the livery colours of Lancaster. It is a weird position, for these colours were derived from the family of the legitimate wife.

The fight as to whether these children were legitimate or illegitimate was, of course, notorious, and a matter of history; but from the fact that they bore a bordure compony, an idea grew up both in this country and in Scotland also from the similarity of the cases of the doubtful legitimacy of the Avondale and Ochiltree Stewarts, who both used the bordure compony, that the bordure compony was a sign of illegitimacy, whereas in both countries at an earlier period it undoubtedly was accepted as a mark of legitimate cadency.

As a mark of bastardy it had subsequently some extensive use in both countries, and it still remains the only mark now used for the purpose in Scottish heraldry. Whether it was that it was not considered as of a fixed nature, or whether it was that it had become notorious and unacceptable, it is difficult to say, though the officers of arms have been blamed for making a change on the assumption that it was the latter.

Some writers who clamour strongly for the penalising of bastard arms, and for the plain and recognisable marking of them as such (a position adopted rather vehemently by Woodward, a singularly erudite heraldic writer), are rather uncharitable, and at the same time rather lacking in due observation and careful consideration of ancient ideas {514} and ancient precedents. That the recognised mark has been changed at different periods, and as a consequence that to a certain extent the advertisement it conveys has been less patent is, of course, put down to the "venality" of mediæval heralds (happily their backs are broad) by those who are too short-sighted to observe that the one thing an official herald moves heaven and earth to escape from is the making of a new precedent; and that, on the score of signs of illegitimacy, the official heralds, when the control of arms passed into their hands, found no established rule. So far from having been guilty of venality, as Woodward suggests, they have erred on the other side, and by having worked only on the limited number of precedents they found they have stereotyped the advertisement, and thereby made the situation more stringent than they found it.

We have it from biblical sources that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generations, and this spirit has undoubtedly crept into the views of many writers, but to get into the true perspective of the matter one needs to consider the subject from the point of view of less prudish days than our own.

I have no wish to be misunderstood. In these days much heraldic reviewing of the blatant and baser sort depends not upon the value of the work performed, a point of view which is never given a thought, but entirely upon the identity of the writer whose work is under review, and is largely composed of misquotation and misrepresentation. It may perhaps be as well, therefore, to state that I am not seeking to condone illegitimacy or to combat present opinions upon the point. I merely state that our present opinions are a modern growth, and that in the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, when the fundamental principles of heraldry were in the making, it was not considered a disgrace to have an illegitimate son, nor was it considered then that to be of illegitimate birth carried the personal stigma that came later.

At any rate, the fact remains that a new mark was called into being in England about the year 1780 when in a grant to Zachary to quarter the arms of Sacheverell, from which family he was in the female line illegitimately descended, the bordure wavy was first met with as a sufficient and proper mark of illegitimacy. The curious point is that before that date in Scotland and in England the bordure wavy possessed nothing of this character, and to the present day the bordure wavy in Scotland is undoubtedly nothing more than a legitimate mark of legitimate cadency, for which mark Mr. Stodart provides a place in the scheme of differencing which he tabulated as the basis of cadency marks in Scotland (Fig. 732). Since that date the bordure wavy has {515} remained the mark which has been used for the purpose in England, as the bordure compony has remained the mark in Scotland.

Bearing in mind that the only necessity was some mark which should carry sufficient distinction from the arms of the family, it follows, as a natural consequence of human nature, that as soon as any particular mark became identified with illegitimacy (after that was considered to be a stigma), that mark was quietly dropped and some other substituted, and no one should be surprised to find the bordures wavy and compony quietly displaced by something else. If any change is to be made in the future it is to be hoped that no existing mark will be adopted, and that the marks in England and Scotland shall not conflict even if they do not coincide.

The bendlet sinister, however, survives in the form of the baton sinister, which is a bendlet couped placed across the centre of the shield. The baton sinister, however, is a privilege which, as a charge on a shield, is reserved, such as it is, for Royal bastards. The latest instance of this was in the exemplification of arms to the Earl of Munster and his brothers and sisters early in the nineteenth century. Other surviving instances are met with in the arms of the Duke of St. Albans and the Duke of Grafton. Another privilege of Royal bastards is that they may have the baton of metal, a privilege which is, according to Berry, denied to those of humbler origin.

According to present law the position of an illegitimate person heraldically is based upon the common law of the country, which practically declares that an illegitimate child has no name, no parentage, and no relations. The illegitimacy of birth is an insuperable bar to inheritance, and a person of illegitimate birth inherits no arms at all, the popular idea that he inherits a right to the arms subject to a mark of distinction being quite incorrect. He has none at all. There has never been any mark which, as a matter of course and of mere motion, could attach itself automatically to a shield, as is the case with the English marks of difference, e.g. the crescent of the second son or the mullet of the third. This is a point upon which I have found mistaken ideas very frequently held, even by those who have made some study of heraldry.

But a very little thought should make it plain that by the very nature of the fact there cannot be either a recognised mark, compulsory use, or an ipse facto sign. Illegitimacy is negative, not positive--a fact which many writers hardly give sufficient weight to.

If any one of illegitimate birth desires to obtain a right to arms he has two courses open to him. He can either (not disclosing the fact of his illegitimacy, and not attempting to prove that he is a descendant of any kind from any one else) apply for and obtain a new grant of {516} arms on his own basis, and worry through the College the grant of a coat as closely following in design that of the old family as he can get, which means that he would be treated and penalised with such alterations (not "marks of distinction") as would be imposed upon a stranger in blood endeavouring to obtain arms founded upon a coat to which he had no right. The cost of such a proceeding in England is £76, 10s., the usual fees upon an ordinary grant.

The alternative course is simple. He must avow himself a bastard, and must prove his paternity or maternity, as the case may be (for in the eye of the law--common and heraldic--he bears the same relation, which is nil, and the same right to the name and arms, which is nil, of both his father and his mother).

Illegitimacy under English law affords one of the many instances in which anomalies exist, for, strange as the statement is, a bastard comes into the world without any name at all.

Legally, at birth a bastard child has then no name at all, and no arms. It must subsequently acquire such right to a name (whatever right that may amount to) as user of and reputation therein may give him. He inherits no arms at all, no name, and no property, save by specific devise or bequest. The lack of parents operates as a chasm which it is impossible to bridge. It is not a case of a peculiar bridge or a faulty bridge; there is no bridge at all.

Names, in so far as they are matters of law, are subject to canon law; at any rate, the law upon the subject, such as it is, originated in canon law, and not in statute or common law. Canon law was made, and has never since been altered, at a time when surnames were not in existence. A bastard no more inherits the surname of the mother than it does the surname of its father; and the spirit of petty officialism, so rampant amongst the clergy, which seeks to impose upon a bastard nolens volens the surname of its mother, has no justification in law or fact. A bastard has precisely as little right to the surname of its mother as it has to the surname of its father. Obviously, however, under the customs of our present social life, every person must have a surname of one kind or another; and it is here that the anomaly in the British law exists, inasmuch as neither statute nor canon law provide any means for conferring a surname. That the King has the prerogative, and exercises it, of conferring or confirming surnames is, of course, unquestioned, but it is hardly to be supposed that the King will trouble himself to provide a surname for every illegitimate child which may be born; and outside this prerogative, which probably is exercised about once a year, there is no method provided or definitely recognised by the law to meet this necessity. To obviate the difficulty, the surname has to be that which is conferred upon the child by {517} general custom; and as an illegitimate child is in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred brought up by its mother, it is usually by the same custom which confers the surname of its owner upon a dog in so many parts of the country that a bastard child gets known by its mother's surname, and consequently has that surname conferred upon it by general custom. The only names that an illegitimate child has an inalienable right to are the names by which it is baptized; and if two names are given, and the child or its guardians elect that it should be known only by those baptismal names, and if common repute and general custom, as would be probable, uses the last of those names as a surname, there is no legal power on earth which can force upon the child any other name; and if the last of the baptismal names happens to be its father's surname, the child will have an absolute right to be known only by its Christian names, which to all intents and purposes will mean that it will be known by its father's surname.

In the same way that an illegitimate child inherits no surname at all, it equally inherits no arms. Consequently it has no shield upon which to carry a mark of bastardy, if such a mark happened to be in existence. But if under a will or deed of settlement an illegitimate child is required to assume the name and arms of its father or of its mother, a Royal Licence to assume such name and arms is considered to be necessary. It may be here noted that voluntary applications to assume a name and arms in the case of an illegitimate child are not entertained unless it can be clearly shown (which is not always an easy matter) what the parentage really was.

It will be noticed that I have said he will be required to prove his paternity. This is rigorously insisted upon, inasmuch as it is not fair to penalise the reputation of a dead man by inflicting upon him a record of bastard descendants whilst his own life might have been stainless. An illegitimate birth is generally recorded under the name of the mother only, and even when it is given, the truth of any statement as to paternity is always open to grave suspicion. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent a person asserting that he is the son of a duke, whereas his real father may have been in a very plebeian walk in life; and to put the arms of the duke's family at the mercy of any fatherless person who chose to fancy a differenced version of them would be manifestly unjust, so that without proof in a legal action of the actual paternity, or some recognition under a will or settlement, it is impossible to adopt the alternative in question. But if such recognition or proof is forthcoming, the procedure is to petition the Sovereign for a Royal Licence to use (or continue to use) the name desired and to bear the arms of the family. Such a petition is always granted, on {518} proper proof of the facts, if made in due form through the proper channels. The Royal Licence to that effect is then issued. But the document contains two conditions, the first being that the arms shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms "with due and proper marks of distinction," and that the Royal Licence shall be recorded in the College of Arms, otherwise "to be void and of none effect." The invariable insertion of this clause puts into the hands of the College one of the strongest weapons the officers of arms possess.

Under the present practice the due and proper marks of distinction are, for the arms, a bordure wavy round the shield of the most suitable colour, according to what the arms may be, but if possible of some colour or metal different from any of the tinctures in the arms. The crest is usually differenced by a bendlet sinister wavy, but a pallet wavy is sometimes used, and sometimes a saltire wavy, couped or otherwise. The choice between these marks generally depends upon the nature of the crest. But even with this choice, the anomaly is frequently found of blank space being carefully debruised. Seeing that the mark of the debruising is not a tangible object or thing, but a mark painted upon another object, such a result seems singularly ridiculous, and ought to be avoided. Whilst the ancient practice certainly appears to have been to make some slight change in the crest, it does not seem to have been debruised in the present manner. There are some number of more recent cases where, whilst the existing arms have been charged with the necessary marks of distinction, entirely new, or very much altered crests have been granted without any recognisable "marks of distinction." There can be no doubt that the bendlet wavy sinister upon the crest is a palpable penalising of the bearer, and I think the whole subject of the marks of bastardy in the three kingdoms might with advantage be brought under official consideration, with a view to new regulations being adopted. A bendlet wavy sinister is such an absolute defacement of a crest that few can care to make use of a crest so marked. It carries an effect far beyond what was originally the intention of marks of distinction.

A few recent bastardised exemplifications which have issued from Ulster's Office have had the crest charged with a baton couped sinister. The baton couped sinister had always hitherto been confined to the arms of Royal bastards, but I am not aware of any Royal crest so bastardised. Of course no circumstances can be conceived in which it is necessary to debruise supporters, as under no circumstances can these be the subject of a Royal Licence of this character, except in a possible case where they might have been granted as a simple augmentation to a man and his descendants, without further limitation. I know of no bastardised version consequent upon such a grant. {519} Supporters signify some definite honour which cannot ordinarily survive illegitimacy.

The bordure wavy is placed round the pronominal arms only, and no right to any quarterings the family may have enjoyed previously is conferred, except such right to a quarterly coat as might ensue through the assumption of a double name. Quartering is held to signify representation which cannot be given by a Royal Licence, but a quartering of augmentation or a duplicate coat for the pronominal name which had been so regularly used with the alternative coat as to constitute the two something in the nature of a compound coat, would be exemplified "all within a bordure wavy." Each illegitimate coat stands on its own basis, and there is a well-known instance in which a marriage was subsequently found to be illegal, or to have never taken place, after which, I believe, some number of brothers and sisters obtained Royal Licences and exemplifications. The descendants of one of the brothers will be found in the current Peerage Books, and those who know their peerage history well will recognise the case I allude to. All the brothers and sisters had the same arms exemplified, each with a bordure wavy of a different colour. If there were descendants of any of the sisters, those descendants would have been entitled to quarter the arms, because the illegitimacy made each sister an heiress for heraldic purposes. This is a curious anomaly, for had they been legitimate the descendants would have enjoyed no such right.

In Scotland the mark of illegitimacy for the arms is the bordure compony, which is usually but not always indicative of the same. The bordure counter-compony has been occasionally stated to have the same character. This is hardly correct, though it may be so in a few isolated cases, but the bordure chequy has nothing whatever of an illegitimate character. It will be noticed that whilst the bordure compony and the bordure counter-company have their chequers or "panes," to use the heraldic term, following the outline of the shield, by lines parallel to those which mark its contour, the bordure chequy is drawn by lines parallel to and at right angles to the palar line of the shield, irrespective of its outline. A bordure chequy must, of course, at one point or another show three distinct rows of checks.

The bastardising of crests even in England is a comparatively modern practice. I know of no single instance ancient or modern of the kind in Scottish heraldry, though I could mention scores of achievements in which the shields carry marks of distinction. This is valuable evidence, for no matter how lax the official practice of Scottish armory may have been at one period, the theory of Scottish armory far more nearly approaches the ancient practices and rules of heraldry {520} than does the armory of any other country. That theory is much nearer the ideal theory than the English one, but unfortunately for the practical purposes of modern heraldic needs, it does not answer so well. At the present day, therefore, a Scottish crest is not marked in any way.

Most handbooks refer to a certain rule which is supposed to exist for the differencing of a coat to denote illegitimacy when the coat is that of the mother and not the father, the supposed method being to depict the arms under a surcoat, the result being much the same as if the whole of the arms appeared in exaggerated flaunches, the remainder of the shield being left vacant except for the tincture of the surcoat. As a matter of fact only one instance is known, and consequently we must consider it as a new coat devised to bear reference to the old one, and not as a regularised method of differencing for a particular set of circumstances.

In Ireland the rules are to all intents and purposes the same as in England, with the exception of the occasional use of a sinister baton instead of a bendlet wavy sinister upon the crest. In Scotland, where Royal Licences are unknown, it is merely necessary to prove paternity, and rematriculate the arms with due and proper marks of distinction.

It was a very general idea during a former period, but subsequently to the time when the bend and bendlet sinister and the bordure were recognised as in the nature of the accepted marks of bastardy, and when their penal nature was admitted, that whatever mark was adopted for the purpose of indicating illegitimacy need only be borne for three generations. Some of the older authorities tell us that after that length of time had elapsed it might be discarded, and some other and less objectionable mark be taken in its place. The older writers were striving, consciously or unconsciously, to reconcile the disgrace of illegitimacy, which they knew, with heraldic facts which they also knew, and to reconcile in certain prominent families undoubted illegitimacy with unmarked arms, the probability being that their sense of justice and regard for heraldry prompted them to the remark that some other mark of distinction ought to be added, whilst all the time they knew it never was. The arms of Byron, Somerset, Meinill, and Herbert are all cases where the marks of illegitimacy have been quietly dropped, entire reversion being had to the undifferenced original coat. At a time when marks of illegitimacy, both in fact and in theory, were nothing more than marks of cadency and difference from the arms of the head of the house, it was no venality of the heralds, but merely the acceptance of current ideas, that permitted them to recognise the undifferenced arms for the illegitimate descendants when there were no legitimate owners from whose claim the arms of the others needed {521} to be differentiated, and when lordships and lands had lapsed to a bastard branch. To this fact must be added another. The armorial control of the heralds after the days of tournaments was exercised through the Visitations and the Earl Marshal's Court. Peers were never subject to the Visitations, and so were not under control unless their arms were challenged in the Earl Marshal's Court by the rightful owner. The cases that were notorious are cases of the arms of peers.

The Visitations gave the officers of arms greater control over the arms of Commoners than they had had theretofore, and the growing social opinions upon legitimacy and marriage brought social observances more into conformity with the technical law, and made that technical law of no inheritance and no paternity an operative fact. The result is that the hard legal fact is now rigidly and rightly insisted upon, and the claim and right to arms of one of illegitimate descent depends and is made to depend solely upon the instruments creating that right, and the conditions of "due and proper marks of distinction" always subject to which the right is called into being. Nowadays there is no release from the penalty of the bordures wavy and compony save through the avenue of a new and totally different grant and the full fees payable therefor. But, as the bearer of a bordure wavy once remarked to me, "I had rather descend illegitimately from a good family and bear their arms marked than descend from a lot of nobodies and use a new grant." But until the common law is altered, if it ever is, the game must be played fairly and the conditions of a Royal Licence observed, for the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.

Although I have refrained from giving any extended list of bastardised coats as examples of the rules for indicating illegitimacy, reference may nevertheless be made to various curious examples.

The canton has occasionally been used. Sir John de Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347), bore a canton of the arms of his mother, Alice de Nerford ["Gules, a lion rampant ermine"], over the chequy shield of Warren. A similar instance can be found in modern times, the arms of Charlton of Apley Castle, co. Salop, being bastardised by a sinister canton which bears two coats quarterly, these coats having formerly been quarterings borne in the usual manner.

The custom of placing the paternal arms upon a bend has been occasionally adopted, but this of course is the creation of a new coat. It was followed by the Beauforts before their legitimation, and by Sir Roger de Clarendon, the illegitimate son of the Black Prince. The Somerset family, who derived illegitimately from the Beauforts, Dukes of Somerset, first debruised the Beaufort arms by {522} a bendlet sinister, but in the next generation the arms were placed upon a wide fess, this on a plain field of or. Although the Somersets, Dukes of Beaufort, have discarded all signs of bastardy from their shield, the version upon the fess was continued as one of the quarterings upon the arms of the old Shropshire family of Somerset Fox. One of the most curious bastardised coats is that of Henry Fitz-Roy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, illegitimate son of Henry VIII. This shows the Royal Arms within a bordure quarterly ermine and counter-compony or and azure, debruised by a baton sinister argent, an inescutcheon quarterly gules and vairé, or and vert [possibly hinting at the Blount arms of his mother, barry nebuly or and sable], over all a lion rampant argent, on a chief azure a tower between two stags' heads caboshed argent, attired or. {523}

XXXIII. THE MARSHALLING OF ARMS

The science of marshalling is the conjoining of two or more coats of arms upon one shield for the purpose of indicating sovereignty, dominion, alliance, descent, or pretension, according to recognised rules and regulations, by the employment of which the story of any given achievement shall be readily translatable.

The methods of marshalling are (1) dimidiation, (2) impalement, (3) quartering, (4) superimposition.

Instances of quartered shields are to be met with possibly before impalements or dimidiation. The earliest attempt at anything like a regularised method of procedure to signify marriage was that usually males quartered the arms of their wives or ancestresses from whom they acquired their lands; whilst impaled coats were to all intents and purposes the armorial bearings of married women, or more frequently of widows who took an immediate interest in their husbands' property. This ancient usage brings home very forcibly the former territorial connection of arms and land. The practice of the husband impaling the wife's arms, whether heiress or not, probably arose near the close of the fifteenth century. Even now it is laid down that the arms of a wife should not in general be borne upon the husband's banner, surcoat, or official seal.

But impalement as we now know it was preceded by dimidiation. Dimidiation, which was but a short-lived method, was effected by the division of the shield down the centre. On the dexter side was placed the dexter half of the husband's arms, and on the sinister side was placed the sinister half of the wife's arms. With some coats of arms no objection could be urged against the employment of this method. But it was liable to result (e.g. with two coats of arms having the same ordinary) in the creation of a design which looked far more like one simple coat than a conjunction of two. The dimidiation of "argent, a bend gules" and "argent, a chevron sable" would simply result in a single coat "argent, a bend per pale gules and sable." This fault of the system must have made itself manifest at an early period, for we soon find it became customary to introduce about two-thirds of {524} the design of each coat for the sake of demonstrating their separate character. It must soon thereafter have become apparent that if two-thirds of the design of a coat of arms could be squeezed into half of the shield there was no valid reason why the whole of the design could not be employed. This therefore became customary under the name of impalement, and the practice has ever since remained with us. Few examples indeed of dimidiation are to be met with, and as a practical method of conjunction, the practice was chiefly in vogue during the earlier part of the fourteenth century.

Occasionally quartered coats were dimidiated, in which case the first and third quarters of the husband's coat were conjoined with the second and fourth of the wife's. As far as outward appearance went, this practice resulted in the fact that no distinction existed from a plain quartered coat. Thus the seal of Margaret of Bavaria, Countess of Holland, and wife of John, Count de Nevers, in 1385 (afterwards Duke of Burgundy), bears a shield on which is apparently a simple instance of quartering, but really a dimidiated coat. The two coats to the dexter side of the palar line are: In chief Burgundy-Modern ("France-Ancient, a bordure compony argent and gules"), and in base Burgundy-Ancient. On the sinister side the coat in chief is Bavaria ("Bendy-lozengy argent and azure"); and the one in base contains the quartered arms of Flanders ("Or, a lion rampant sable"); and Holland ("Or, a lion rampant gules"); the lines dividing these latter quarters being omitted, as is usually found to be the case with this particular shield.

Certain examples can be found amongst the Royal Arms in England which show much earlier instances of dimidiation. The arms of Margaret of France, who died in 1319, the second queen of Edward I., as they remain on her tomb in Westminster Abbey, afford an example of this method of conjunction. The arms of England appear on the dexter side of the escocheon; and this coat undergoes a certain amount of curtailment, though the dimidiation is not complete, portions only of the hindmost parts of the lions being cut off by the palar line. The coat of France, on the sinister side, of course does not readily indicate the dimidiation.

Boutell, in his chapter on marshalling in "Heraldry, Historical and Popular," gives several early examples of dimidiation. The seal of Edmond Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall (d. 1300), bears his arms (those of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and King of the Romans) dimidiating those of his wife, Margaret de Clare. Here only the sinister half of his bordure is removed, while the Clare coat ("Or, three chevrons gules") is entirely dimidiated, and the chevrons are little distinguishable from bends. Both coats are dimidiated in other examples mentioned {525} by Boutell, viz. William de Valence and his wife, and Alianore Montendre and her husband Guy Ferre. On the seal of Margaret Campbell, wife of Alexander Napier, in 1531, the shield shows upon the dexter side the arms of Lennox, and on the sinister the dimidiated coat (the sinister half of the quartered arms) of Campbell and Lorn. This results in the galley of Lorn being in chief, and the Campbell gyrons in base.

An early and interesting Irish example of this kind of marshalling is afforded by a dimidiated coat of Clare and Fitzgerald, which now figures on the official seal of the Provosts of Youghal (Clare: "Or, three chevrons gules." Fitzgerald: "Argent, a saltire gules, with a label of five points in chief"). Both these coats are halved. They result from the marriage of Richard Clare, Earl of Hertford, with Juliana, daughter and heir of Maurice Fitzgerald, feudal lord of Inchiquin and Youghal.

An even more curious case of dimidiation comes to light in the arms formerly used by the Abbey of St. Etienne at Caen, in which the arms of England and those attributed to the Duchy of Normandy ("Gules, two lions passant guardant or") were dimidiated, so that in the former half three of the fore-quarters of the lions appear, while in the sinister half only two of the hind-quarters are represented.

Dimidiation was not always effected by conjunction down the palar line, other partition lines of the shield being occasionally, though very rarely, employed in this manner.

Certain curious (now indivisible) coats of arms remain which undoubtedly originated in the dimidiation of two separate coats, e.g. the arms of Yarmouth, Sandwich, Hastings, Rye, and Chester. In all cases some Royal connection can be traced which has caused the Royal Arms of England to be conjoined with the earlier devices of fish, ships, or garbs which had been employed by the towns in question. It is worth the passing thought, however, whether the conjoined lions and hulks used by the Cinque Ports may not originally have been a device of the Sovereign for naval purposes, or possibly the naval version of the Royal Arms (see page 182).

One other remainder from the practice of dimidiation still survives amongst the presently existing rules of heraldry. It is a rule to which no modern authoritative exception can be mentioned. When a coat within a bordure is impaled with another coat, the bordure is not continued down the centre of the shield, but stops short at top and bottom when the palar line is reached. This rule is undoubtedly a result of the ancient method of conjunction by dimidiation, but the curious point is that, at the period when dimidiation was employed and during the period which followed, some number of examples can be {526} found where the bordure is continued round the whole coat which is within it.

The arms of man and wife are now conjoined according to the following rules:--If the wife is not an heraldic heiress the two coats are impaled. If the wife be an heraldic heir or coheir, in lieu of impalement the arms of her family are placed on an inescutcheon superimposed on the centre of her husband's arms, the inescutcheon being termed an escutcheon of pretence, because jure uxoris she being an heiress of her house, the husband "pretends" to the representation of her family.

For heraldic purposes it therefore becomes necessary to define the terms heir and heiress. It is very essential that the point should be thoroughly understood, because quarterings other than those of augmentation can only be inherited from or through female ancestors who are in themselves heirs or coheirs (this is the true term, or, rather, the ancient term, though they are now usually referred to colloquially as heiresses or coheiresses) in blood, or whose issue subsequently become in a later generation the representatives of any ancestor in the male line of that female ancestor. A woman is an "heir" or "heiress" (1) if she is an only child; (2) if all her brothers die without leaving any issue to survive, either male or female; (3) she becomes an heiress "in her issue," as it is termed, if she die leaving issue herself if and when all the descendants male and female of her brothers become absolutely extinct. The term "coheir" or "coheiress" is employed in cases similar to the foregoing when, instead of one daughter, there are two or more.

No person can be "heir" or "coheir" of another person until the latter is dead, though he or she may be heir-apparent or heir-presumptive. Though the word "heir" is frequently used with regard to material matters, such usage is really there incorrect, except in cases of intestacy. A person benefiting under a will is a legatee of money, or a devisee of land, and not an heir to either. The table on page 527 may make things a little clearer, but in the following remarks intestacy is ignored, and the explanations apply solely to heirship of blood.

Charles in the accompanying pedigree is, after 1800, heir of David. Thomas is heir-apparent of Charles, being a son and the eldest born. He dies v.p. (vita patris, i.e. in the lifetime of his father) and never becomes heir. A daughter can never become an heir-apparent, as there is always, during the lifetime of her father, the possibility of a son being born. Mary, Ellen, and Blanche are coheirs of Thomas their father, whom they survive, and they are also coheirs of their grandfather Charles, to whom they succeed, and they would properly in a pedigree be described as both. They are heirs-general of Thomas, Charles, and David, and, being the heirs of the senior line, they are heirs-general or coheirs-general of their house. David being possessed of the barony "by writ" of Cilfowyr, it would "fall into abeyance" at the death of Charles between the three daughters equally.

{527}

DAVID CILFOWYR, created Duke of London in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, remainder to him and the heirs male of his body, was Earl of Edinburgh in the Peerage of Scotland (with remainder to his heirs), and Lord Cilfowyr by writ in the Peerage of England (with remainder to his heirs-general). Died 1800. | -------------------------------------------------- | | CHARLES CILFOWYR, OWEN CILFOWYR, Esq., elder son and heir; head of commonly called Lord Owen his house, Duke of London, Cilfowyr by courtesy. Earl of Edinburgh, and Lord Cilfowyr. Died 1870. Died 1840. | | -------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | ROBERT CILFOWYR, Esq., PHILIP CILFOWYR, Esq., | | eldest son, becomes heir second son. Died 1879. | | male of his house in 1880 | | | at the death of George, and ADA, only child, has | | as such succeeds as Duke of no courtesy title. | | London. Died 1896. Living in 1900. | | | | | HARRIET CILFOWYR, | | only child, by CECIL CILFOWYR, Esq., | courtesy after 1880 third son. When his brother | Lady Harriet Cilfowyr. succeeds in 1880 as Duke of | Died 1897. London he petitions the | Queen for that style and | precedence which he would | have enjoyed had his father | lived to inherit the Dukedom. | His petition being granted, | he becomes by courtesy Lord | Cecil Cilfowyr, until he | succeeds in 1896, at the | death of his brother, to | the Dukedom of London. | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | THOMAS CILFOWYR, Esq., | | | ISABEL CILFOWYR, eldest son and heir-apparent, | | | styled by courtesy as styled Earl of Edinburgh by | | | Lady Isabel Cilfowyr. courtesy. Died v.p. | | | Living 1900. 1830, so never succeeds. | | | | | | | | | | IRENE CILFOWYR, | | | styled by courtesy as | | | Lady Irene Cilfowr | | | Living 1900. | | | | ---------------- | | | | | | | | EDMOND CILFOWYR, Esq., | | second son, styled by courtesy | | courtesy Lord Edmond Cilfowyr | | until 1840, when he succeeds | | as Duke of London. Died 1850. | | | | | | -------------- | | | | | JOHN CILFOWYR, Esq., = EDITH TORKINGTON, | | third son, styled by | succeeds in 1861 as | | courtesy Lord John Cilfowyr | suo jure Baroness | | until 1850, when he | Neville by writ in England, | | succeeds as Duke of London. | and Countess of Torkington | | London. Died 1870. | (to herself and her heirs) | | | in Scotland. Died 1862. | | | | | ----------------------------- | | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | MARY CILFOWYR, ELLEN CILFOWYR, BLANCHE CILFOWYR, | | Countess of styled by courtesy styled by courtesy | | Edinburgh. Lady Ellen Cilfowyr. Lady Blanche Cilfowyr. | | Living 1900. Living 1900. Living 1900. | | Heir of Line. | | | | | | ------------------------------------------- | | | | | The Barony of Cilfowyr falls into abeyance between these | | three equally. In Scottish phraseology they are termed | | heirs portioners. | | --------------------------------- | | | | GRACE CILFOWYR, MURIEL CILFOWYR, | styled by courtesy styled by courtesy | Lady Grace Cilfowyr, Lady Muriel Cilfowyr. | elder dau. Living 1900. Living 1900. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | GEORGE CILFOWYR, Esq., ALICE CILFOWYR, | only son, and so styled styled by courtesy | until 1850, when his father succeeds Lady Alice Cilfowyr until | as Duke of London. As son of a Duke 1885, when she succeeds as | he then becomes by courtesy Lord George Countess of Torkington. | Cilfowyr, and this is his proper Died 1887, s.p. | description, because his father has no | minor title which he could assume. But | by a quite modern custom which has ------------------------- sprung up of late years he would very | probably call himself "Lord Cilfowyr." ANNIE CILFOWYR, = REGINALD In 1861 his mother succeeds in her styled by courtesy | SHERWIN. own right to two titles, and by Lady Annie Cilfowyr | Died 1872. courtesy he would thenceforward be and Lady Annie | styled by her minor title as Lord Sherwin. Died 1870. | Neville until her death in 1862, when | he becomes Earl of Torkington in his | own right and also Lord Neville. ---------------------- At his father's death in 1870 he | | becomes Duke of London. Died 1880. | LILIAN SHERWIN, | | only daughter, known | | as Lady Lilian Sherwin DOROTHY CILFOWYR, styled | until 1896, when she Lady Dorothy Cilfowyr until 1880, | succeeds as Countess when she becomes suo jure | of Torkington and Countess of Torkington and Baroness | Baroness Neville. Neville. Died s.p. 1885. | Living 1900. | ARTHUR SHERWIN, only son and heir, succeeds as Earl of Torkington and Lord Neville in 1887, at the death of his aunt. Died 1888. | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | MARIA SHERWIN, called JANE SHERWIN, | by courtesy Lady Maria Sherwin, by courtesy Lady Jane | succeeds in 1888 as Countess of Sherwin, succeeds as | Torkington and senior coheir Countess of Torkington | to the Barony of Neville, in 1889, but the | which falls into abeyance between Barony of Neville again | herself and her sisters. The falls into abeyance | Queen determines the abeyance between herself and her | in her favour, and she consequently younger sister. | becomes also Baroness Died s.p. 1890. | Neville. Died s.p. 1889. | ------------- | HANNAH SHERWIN, called by courtesy Lady Hannah Sherwin. She succeeds in 1890 as sole heir of her father, and consequently the abeyance determines of itself, and she becomes both Countess of Torkington and Baroness Neville. Died s.p. 1896.

{528}

In Scotland Mary, Ellen, and Blanche would be termed "heirs portioners," and Mary, being an heiress and the eldest born in the direct and senior line, would be termed the "heir of line." David being possessed of an ancient Scottish peerage not limited to males (the Earldom of Edinburgh), Mary, the heir of line, would at once succeed in her own right as Countess of Edinburgh on the death of her grandfather Charles. If the family were an untitled Scottish family entitled to supporters, these would descend to Mary unless they had been specifically granted with some other limitation.

At the death of Thomas in 1830 Edmond becomes heir male apparent, and at the death of his father in 1840 Edmond becomes heir male of his house until his death. David having been created a peer (Duke of London) with remainder to the heirs male of his body, Edmond succeeded as Duke of London at the death of Charles in 1840. Grace and Muriel are coheirs of Edmond after his death. They are not either coheirs or heirs-general of Charles, in spite of the fact that their father was his heir male. At the death of Charles in 1840, when Edmond succeeded as heir male, John succeeded as heir male presumptive to Edmond. He was not heir-apparent, because a son might at any moment have been born to Edmond. An heir-apparent and an heir-presumptive cannot exist at the same time, for whilst there is an heir-apparent there cannot be an heir-presumptive. John succeeded as heir male of his house, and therefore as Duke of London, in 1850, at the death of his elder brother Edmond; but, though John was the "heir male" of his said elder brother, he was not his "heir" (Grace and Muriel being the coheirs of Edmond), nor was he the "heir male of the body" of Edmond, not being descended from him. John, however, was "heir male of the body" of Charles. George is heir-apparent of John until his death in 1870, when George succeeds as "heir" of his father and heir male of his house, and consequently Duke of London. At his death in 1880 Dorothy becomes the "sole heir," or, more properly, the "sole heir-general," of her father George; but his kinsman Robert becomes his "heir male," and therefore Duke of London, in spite of the fact that there was a much nearer male relative, viz. a nephew, Arthur, the son of his sister. Robert also becomes the heir male of the body of Owen and heir male of his house, and as such Duke of London. He would also be generally described as the heir male of the body of David.

At the death of Dorothy in 1885 her coheirs were her aunt Alice and her cousin Arthur equally, and though these really were the coheirs {529} of Dorothy (the claims of Alice and Annie being equal, and the rights of Annie having devolved upon Arthur), they would more usually be found described as the coheirs of George or of John. Annie was never herself really a coheir, because she died before her brother, but "in her issue" she became the coheir of Dorothy, though she would, after 1885, be usually described as "in her issue" a coheir of George, or possibly even of John, though this would be an inexact description. Arthur was heir of his mother after 1870, heir of his father after 1872, and heir-apparent of his father before that date; after 1885 he is a coheir of Dorothy, and after 1887 sole heir of Dorothy and sole heir of Alice. He would also be usually described as heir-general of George, and heir-general of John. Let us suppose that John had married Edith Torkington, an English baroness (suo jure) by writ (Baroness Neville), who had died in 1862. At that date the barony would have descended to her eldest son George until his death in 1880, when Dorothy, suo jure, would have succeeded. At her death in 1885 the barony would have fallen into abeyance between Alice and Arthur. At the death of Alice in 1887 the abeyance would be at an end, and the barony in its entirety would have devolved upon Arthur, who would have enjoyed it until at his death in 1888 the barony would have again fallen into abeyance between Maria, Jane, and Hannah equally. It is not unlikely that Her Majesty might have "determined the abeyance," or "called the barony out of abeyance" (the meanings of the terms are identical) in favour of Maria, who would consequently have enjoyed the barony in its entirety. At her death in 1889 it would again fall into abeyance between Jane and Hannah. At Jane's death in 1890 Hannah became sole heir, and the abeyance came to an end when Hannah succeeded to the barony. At her death it would pass to her aunt Lilian. Hannah would usually be described as "coheir and subsequently sole heir of" Arthur. If the Baroness Neville had been possessed of an ancient Scottish Peerage (the Earldom of Torkington) it would have passed undividedly and in full enjoyment to the heir of line, i.e. in 1862 to George, 1880 to Dorothy, 1885 to Alice, 1887 to Arthur, 1888 to Maria, 1889 to Jane, 1890 to Hannah, and 1896 to Lilian, the last (shown on the pedigree) in remainder. Lilian does not become an heiress until 1896, when the whole issue of her brother becomes extinct. Irene and Isabel never become heirs at all.

Robert, as we have seen, became heir male of his house and Duke of London in 1880. At his death (1896) Harriet becomes sole heir of Robert, but at her death in 1897 his niece Ada, the only child of his younger brother Philip, who had predeceased him, would be usually referred to as heir of Robert, whilst Cecil is heir male of his house. {530}

When the term "of the body" is employed, actual descent from that person is signified, e.g. Arthur after 1885 is "collateral" heir-general of Dorothy, but "heir-general of the body" of Edith Torkington.

An "heir of entail," or, to use the Scottish term, the "heir of tailzie," is merely the person succeeding to property under a specific remainder contained in a deed of entail. This has no relation to heirship in blood, and the term, from an armorial point of view, might be entirely disregarded, were it not that some number of Scottish coats of arms, and a greater number of Scottish supporters, and some Scottish peerages and baronetcies, are specifically granted and limited to the heirs of entail. There are a few similar English grants following upon Royal Licences for change of name and arms.

The term "heir in expectancy" is sometimes heard, but it is not really a proper term, and has no exact or legal meaning. When George was alive his daughter Dorothy was his heir-presumptive, but supposing that Dorothy were a Catholic nun and Alice a lunatic, in each of which cases there would be very little likelihood of any marriage ever taking place, Arthur would very generally be described as "heir in expectancy," for though he was neither heir-apparent nor heir-presumptive, all probability pointed to the eventual succession of himself or his issue.

Anybody is said to be "in remainder" to entailed property or a peerage if he is included within the recited limits of the entail or peerage. The "heir in remainder" is the person next entitled to succeed after the death of the existing holder.

Thus (excluding heirs in expectancy and women who are {531} heirs-presumptive) a marriage with any woman who is an heir or coheir results in her arms being placed upon an escutcheon of pretence over the arms of the husband. In the cases of all other women the arms are "impaled" only. To "impale two coats" the shield is divided by a straight line down the centre, the whole design of the arms of the husband being placed on the dexter side of the escutcheon, and the whole design of the wife's arms being placed on the sinister side (Fig. 742).

It may perhaps be as well to here exemplify the different methods of the conjunction of the arms of man and wife, arranging the same two coats in the different methods in which they might be marshalled before reverting to ancient practices.

An ordinary commoner impales his wife's arms as in Fig. 742. If she be an heiress, he places them on an escutcheon of pretence as in Fig. 743. If the husband, not being a Knight, is, however, a Companion of an Order of Knighthood, this does not (except in the case of the Commanders of the Victorian Order) give him the right to use the circle of his Order round his arms, and his badge is simply hung below the escutcheon, the arms of the wife being impaled or placed on an escutcheon of pretence thereupon as the case may necessitate. The wife of a Knight Bachelor shares the state and rank with her husband, and the only difference is in the helmet (Fig. 744). But if the husband be a knight of any order, the ensigns of that order are personal to himself, and cannot be shared with his wife, and consequently two shields are employed. On the dexter shield are the arms of the husband with the circle of his order of knighthood, and on the sinister shield are the arms of the husband impaling the arms of the wife. Some meaningless decoration, usually a wreath of oak-leaves, is placed round the sinister shield to "balance," from the artistic point, the {532} ribbon, or the ribbon and collar, as the case may be, of the order of knighthood of the husband (Fig. 745). A seeming exception to this rule in the case of the recent warrant to Queen Alexandra, whose arms, impaled by those of His Majesty, are depicted impaled within the Garter, is perhaps explained by the fact that Her Majesty is herself a member of that Order. A Knight Grand Cross, of course, adds his collar to the dexter shield, and if he has supporters, these are placed outside the two shields.

A peer impales the arms of his wife as in the case of a commoner, the arms of the wife being, of course, under the protection of the supporters, coronet, and helmet of the peer (Fig. 746). If, in addition to being a peer, he is also a knight of an order, he follows the rules which prescribe the use of two shields as already described.

Supposing the wife to be a peeress in her own right, she cannot nowadays confer any rank whatever upon her husband; consequently, if she marry a commoner, the husband places her arms upon an escutcheon of pretence surmounted by a coronet of her rank, but the supporters belonging to her peerage cannot be added to his shield. The arms of the wife are consequently repeated alone, but in this case upon a lozenge on the sinister side of the husband's shield. Above this lozenge is placed the coronet of her rank, and the supporters belonging to her peerage are placed on either side of the lozenge (Fig. 747). But the arms of a peeress in her own right are frequently represented on a lozenge without any reference to the arms of her husband. In the case of a peeress in her own right marrying a peer, the arms of the peeress are placed upon an escutcheon of pretence in the centre of {533} her husband's shield, the only difference being that this escutcheon of pretence is surmounted by the coronet belonging to the peerage of the wife; and on the sinister side the arms of the wife are repeated upon a lozenge with the supporters and coronet belonging to her own peerage. It is purely an artistic detail, but it is a happy conceit in such an instance to join together the compartments upon which the two pairs of supporters stand to emphasise the fact that the whole is in reality but one achievement (Fig. 748).

Now, it is not uncommon to see an achievement displayed in this manner, for there have been several instances in recent years of peeresses in their own right who have married peers. Every woman who inherits a peerage must of necessity be an heir or coheir, and, as will have been seen, the laws of armory provide for this circumstance; but supposing that the peeress were a peeress by creation and were not an heiress, how would her arms be displayed? Apparently it would not be permissible to place them on an escutcheon of pretence, and consequently there is no way upon the husband's shield of showing that his wife is a peeress in her own right. Such an instance did arise in the case of the late Baroness Stratheden, who was created a peeress whilst not being an heiress. Her husband was subsequently created Baron Campbell. Now, how were the arms of Lord Campbell and Lady Stratheden and Campbell displayed? I think I am correct in saying that not a single textbook on armory recites the method which should be employed, and I candidly confess that I myself am quite ignorant upon the point.

All the foregoing are simply instances of how to display the arms of man and wife, or, to speak more correctly, they are instances of the methods in which a man should bear arms for himself and his wife when he is married; for the helmet and mantling clearly indicate that it is the man's coat of arms, and not the woman's. In olden days, when the husband possessed everything, this might have been enough for all the circumstances which were likely to occur.

A lady whilst unmarried bears arms on a lozenge (Fig. 749), and upon becoming a widow, bears again upon a lozenge the arms of her husband impaled with the arms borne by her father (Fig. 750), or with the latter upon an escutcheon of pretence if the widow be herself an {534} heiress (Fig. 751). The widow of a knight has no way whatever of indicating that her husband was of higher rank than an ordinary untitled gentleman. The widow of a baronet, however, places the inescutcheon with the hand of Ulster upon her husband's arms (Fig. 752). I have often heard this disputed, but a reference to the Grant Books at the College of Arms (vide a grant of arms some years ago to Lady Pearce) will provide the necessary precedent. If, however, the baronetcy is of Nova Scotia, this means of indicating the rank cannot be employed. The widow of a peer (not being a peeress in her own right) uses a lozenge of her husband's and her own arms, with his supporters and his coronet (Fig. 753).

If a peeress, after marriage with a commoner, becomes a widow she bears on the dexter side a lozenge of her late husband's arms and superimposed thereupon her own on an escutcheon of pretence surmounted by a coronet. (The coronet, it should be noted, is over the escutcheon of pretence and not above the lozenge.) On the sinister side she bears a lozenge of her own arms alone with her supporters and with her coronet above the lozenge. The arms of the present Baroness Kinloss would show an example of such an arrangement of two lozenges, but as Lady Kinloss does not possess supporters these additions could not be introduced.

The laws of arms provide no way in which a married woman (other than a peeress in her own right) can display arms in her own right during the lifetime of her husband, unless this is to be presumed from the method of depicting the arms of a wife upon a hatchment. In such a case, a shield is used, usually suspended from a ribbon, identical with the shield of the husband, but omitting the helmet, crest, mantling, and motto.

Impalement is used occasionally in other circumstances than marriage, i.e. to effect conjunction of official and personal arms.

With rare exceptions, the official arms which exist are those of Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees, of the Kings of Arms, and of the {535} Regius Professors at Cambridge. Here certainly, in the ecclesiastical cases, the theory of marriage remains, the official arms being placed on the dexter side and the personal arms on the sinister, inasmuch as the laws of armory for ecclesiastics were made at a time when the clergy were celibate. The personal helmet and crest are placed above the impaled coat, except in the cases of bishops and archbishops, who, of course, use a mitre in place thereof. It is not correct to impale the arms of a wife upon the same shield which carries the impalement of an official coat of arms, because the wife does not share the office. In such a case it is necessary to make use of two shields placed side by side, as is done in conjoining the arms of a Knight of any Order with those of his wife.

In impaling the arms of a wife, it is not correct to impale more than her pronominal coat. This is a definite rule in England, somewhat modified in Scotland, as will be presently explained. Though it has never been considered good form to impale a quartered shield, it is only recently that the real fact that such a proceeding is definitely incorrect has come to light. It appears from the State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz. xxvi. 31, 1561:--

"At a Chapitre holden by the office of Armes at the Embroyderers' Hall in London, anno 4^o Reginæ Elizabethæ it was agreed that no inhiritrix eyther mayde wife or widow should bear or cause to be borne any Creast or cognizance of her Ancestors otherwise than as followeth. If she be unmarried to bear in her ringe, cognizaunce or otherwise, the first coate of her ancestors in a Lozenge. And during her widowhood to set the first coate of her husbande in pale with the first coate of her Auncestors. And if she mary on who is noe gentleman, then she to be clearly exempted from the former conclusion."

Whilst this rule holds in England, it must, to a certain extent, be modified in relation to the arms of a Scottish wife. Whilst the inalienable right to quarter arms derived from an heiress cannot be said to be non-existent in Scotland, it should be noted that the custom of indiscriminately quartering is much less frequent than in England, and comparatively seldom adopted, unless estates, or chief representation in an important or appreciable degree, follow the technical heraldic representation. In England the claim is always preferred to quarter the arms of an ancestress who had no brothers whether she transmitted estates or not. Of course, technically and theoretically the claim is perfectly correct, and cannot, and should not, be denied. But in practice in England it has in some cases reached a rather absurd extent, when a man on marrying an only daughter of the youngest son of the youngest branch of a family consequently acquires the right to display with his own ensigns the full arms and quarterings of {536} the head of a house from which he has inherited no lands, and which is still thriving in the senior male line. In Scottish practice such an event would be ignored, and in that country it is not usual to add quarterings to a shield, nor are these officially recognised without a rematriculation of the arms. In England it is merely a question of recording the pedigree and proving heirship, and many quarterings are proved and recorded that there is not the slightest intention to use regularly. Rematriculation has a more permanent character than mere registration, inasmuch as the coat with its quarterings upon matriculation as far as usage is concerned becomes indivisible, and, consequently, for a Scottish wife the impalement should be of the indivisible arms and quarterings matriculated to her father in Lyon Register, with his bordure and other "difference" marks.

All the old armorists provide ways of impaling the arms of several wives, and consequently the idea has grown up that it is permissible and correct to bear and use the arms of two wives at the same time. This is a mistake, because, strictly and technically speaking, the right to impale the arms of a wife ceases at her death. Impalement means marriage, and when the marriage is dissolved the impalement becomes meaningless, and should be discontinued. A man cannot be married to two people at one time, nor can he as a consequence impale two coats of arms at the same time.

The matter is more clearly apparent if the question of an escutcheon of pretence be considered in place of an impalement. The escutcheon of pretence means that the husband pretends to represent the family of his wife. This jure uxoris he undoubtedly does whilst she is alive, but the moment she dies the actual representation of her family passes to her son and heir, and it is ridiculous for her husband to pretend to represent when there is an undoubted representative in existence, and when the representation, such as it was when vested in himself, has come to an end, and passed elsewhere. If his heiress-wife had been a peeress, he would have borne her escutcheon of pretence surmounted by her coronet; but it is ridiculous for him to continue to do so when the right to the coronet and to the peerage has passed to his wife's heir. The same argument holds good with regard to impalement. That, of course, raises the point that in every authority (particularly in those of an earlier period) will be found details of the methods to be adopted for impaling the arms of several wives. People have quite failed to appreciate the object of these rules. Armory from its earliest introduction has had great memorial use, and when a monument or hatchment is put up to a man it has been usual, prior to these utilitarian days of funeral reform, to memorialise all the wives he has been possessed of. In the same way, in a pedigree it is necessary to {537} enumerate the names and arms of all the wives of a man. Consequently for tombs and pedigrees--when all being dead, there is no reason to indicate any particular woman as the present wife--plans have been devised for the combination of several coats into one memorial achievement, plans necessitated by the circumstances of the cases, and plans to which no objection can be taken. Tombs, pedigrees, and other memorials are the usual form in which the records of arms have chiefly come down to us, and from the frequency in which cases of achievements with double impalements have been preserved, a mistaken idea has arisen that it is correct to bear, and actually use and carry, two impalements at one and the same time. Outside memorial instances, I have utterly failed to find any instance in former days of a man himself using in his own lifetime two impalements, and I believe and state it to be absolutely incorrect for a man to use, say on a carriage, a bookplate, or a seal, the arms of a deceased wife. You may have been married to a presently deceased woman, therefore impale her arms in a record or memorial; but no one is married to a deceased woman, therefore it is wrong to advertise that you are married to her by impaling her arms; and as you cannot be married to two people at the same time, it is illogical and wrong to use or carry two impalements. I know of no instance of a grant to a man of arms to bear in right of a deceased wife. It is for these occasions of memorial and record that methods have been devised to show a man's marriage with several wives. They certainly were not devised for the purpose of enabling him to bear and use for contemporary purposes the arms of a series of dead women, the representation of whom is no longer vested in himself.

Whilst admitting that for the purposes of record or memorial rules do exist, it should at the same time be pointed out that even for such occasions it is much more usual to see two shields displayed, each carrying its separate impalement, than to find two impalements on one shield. The use of a separate shield for each marriage is the method that I would strongly advocate, but as a knowledge of past observances must be had fully, if one is to read aright the records of the tombs, I recite what the rules are:--

(1) To impale the arms of two wives.--Either the husband's arms are placed in the centre, with the first wife on the dexter and the second wife on the sinister, or else the husband's arms are placed on the dexter side, and the sinister side is divided in fess, the arms of the first wife being placed in chief and those of the second in base. The former method is the one more generally employed of the two.

(2) Three wives.--Husband's arms in centre, first wife's on dexter side, second wife's on sinister side in chief, and third wife in base. {538}

(3) Four wives.--Husband's in centre, first and second wives' in chief and base respectively on the dexter side, and third and fourth similarly on the sinister.

If one of two wives be an heiress her arms might be found in pretence and the other coat or coats impaled, but it is impossible in such a case to place a number to the wife, and it is impossible to display an escutcheon of pretence for more than one wife, as if the escutcheon of pretence is removed from the exact centre it at once ceases to be an escutcheon of pretence. Consequently, if more than one wife be an heiress, separate escutcheons should be used for each marriage. Plans have been drawn up and apparently accepted providing for wives up to nearly twenty in number, but no useful purpose will be served by repeating them. A man with more than four wives is unusual in this country.

Divorce nullifies marriage, and both husband and wife must at once revert to bachelor and maiden achievements respectively.

It is difficult to deduce any certain conclusions as to the ancient rules connected with impalement, for a simple reason which becomes very noticeable on an examination of ancient seals and other armorial records. In early times there can be no doubt whatever that men did not impale, or bother about the arms of wives who were not great heiresses. A man bore his own arms, and he left his father-in-law, or his brother-in-law, to bear those of the family with which he had matched. Of course, we find many cases in which the arms of a wife figure upon the husband's shield, but a careful examination of them shows that in practically every case the reason is to be found in the fact that the wife was an heiress. Husbands were called to Parliament in virtue of the peerages vested in their wives, and we cannot but come to the conclusion that whenever one finds use in early times of the arms of a wife, it is due to the fact that the husband was bearing them not because of his mere marriage, but because he was enjoying the estates, or peerage, of his wife.

For that reason we find in many cases the arms of the wife borne in preference to the paternal arms of descent, or meet with them quartered with the arms of the husband, and frequently being given precedence over his own; and on the analogy of the coats of arms of wives at present borne with the wife's surname by the husband under Royal Licence, there can be little doubt that at a period when Royal Licences had not come into regular vogue the same idea was dominant, and the appearance of a wife's coat of arms meant the assumption of those arms by the husband as his own, with or without the surname of the wife.

The connection between name and arms was not then so stereotyped as it is at present; rather was it a connection between arms and {539} land, and perhaps more pointedly of arms and a peerage title where this existed, for there are many points and many facts which conclusively show that at an early period a coat of arms was often considered to have a territorial limitation; or perhaps it should be said that, whilst admittedly personal, arms have territorial attributes or connection.

This is borne out by the pleadings and details remaining to us concerning the Grey and Hastings controversy, and if this territorial character of a coat of arms is admitted, together with another characteristic no less important--and certainly equally accepted--that a coat of arms could belong to but one person at the same time, it must be recognised that the appearance of a wife's arms on a husband's shield is not an instance of a sign of mere marriage or anything analogous thereto. But when we turn to the arms of women, the condition of affairs is wholly reversed. A woman, who of course retained her identity, drew her position from her marriage and from her husband's position, and from the very earliest period we find that whilst a man simply bore his own arms, the wife upon her seal displayed both the arms of her own family and the arms of her husband's. Until a much later period it cannot be said to have been ordinarily customary for the husband to bear the arms of his wife unless she were an heiress, but from almost the beginning of armory the wife conjoined the arms of her husband and herself. But the instances which have come down to us from an early period of dimidiated or impaled coats are chiefly instances of the display of arms by a widow.

The methods of conjunction which can be classed as above, however, at first seem to have been rather varied.

Originally separate shields were employed for the different coats of arms, then dimidiated examples occur; at a later period we find the arms impaled upon one shield, and at a subsequent date the escutcheon of pretence comes into use as a means of indicating that the wife was an heiress.

The origin of this escutcheon is easy to understand. Taking arms to have a territorial limitation--a point which still finds a certain amount of acceptance in Scottish heraldry--there was no doubt that a man, in succeeding to a lordship in right of his wife, would wish to bear the arms associated therewith. He placed them, therefore, upon his own, and arms exclusively of a territorial character have certainly very frequently been placed "in pretence." His own arms he would look upon as arms of descent; they consequently occupied the field of his shield. The lordship of his wife he did not enjoy through descent, and consequently he would naturally incline to place it "in pretence," and from the constant occasions in which such a proceeding would seem to be the natural course of events (all of which occasions {540} would be associated with an heiress-wife), one would be led to the conclusion that such a form of display indicated an heiress-wife; and consequently the rule deduced, as are all heraldic rules, from past precedents became established.

In the next generation, the son and heir would have descent from his mother equally with his father, and the arms of her family would be equally arms of descent to him, and no longer the mere territorial emblem of a lordship. Consequently they became on the same footing as the arms of his father. The son would naturally, therefore, quarter the arms. The escutcheon of pretence being removed, and therefore having enjoyed but a temporary existence, the association thereof with the heiress-wife becomes emphasised in a much greater degree.

This is now accepted as a definite rule of armory, but in reciting it as a rule it should be pointed out, first, that no man may place the arms of his wife upon an escutcheon of pretence during the lifetime of her father, because whilst her father is alive there is always the opportunity of a re-marriage, and of the consequent birth of a son and heir. No man is compelled to bear arms on an escutcheon of pretence, it being quite correct to impale them merely to indicate the marriage--if he so desires. There are many cases of arms which would appear meaningless and undecipherable when surmounted by an escutcheon of pretence.

"Sometimes, also (says Guillim), he who marries an heretrix may carry her arms in an inescutcheon upon his own, because the husband pretends that his heirs shall one day inherit an estate by her; it is therefore called an escutcheon of pretence; but this way of bearing is not known abroad upon that occasion."

A man on marrying an heiress-wife has no great space at his disposal for the display of her arms, and though it is now considered perfectly correct to place any number of quarterings upon an escutcheon of pretence, the opportunity does not in fact exist for more than the display of a limited number. In practice, three or four are as many as will usually be found, but theoretically it is correct to place the whole of the quarterings to which the wife is entitled upon the escutcheon of pretence.

Two early English instances may be pointed out in the fifteenth century, in which a husband placed his wife's arms en surtout. These are taken from the Garter Plates of Sir John Neville, Lord Montagu, afterwards Marquess of Montagu (elected K.G. circa 1463), and of Richard Beauchamp, fifth Earl of Warwick and Albemarle (elected K.G. circa 1400); but it was not until about the beginning of the seventeenth century that the regular practice arose by which the husband of an heiress places his wife's arms in an escutcheon en surtout {541} upon his personal arms, whether his coat be a quartered one or not. Another early instance is to be found in Fig. 754, which is interesting as showing the arms of both wives of the first Earl of Shrewsbury. His first was suo jure Baroness Furnivall. Her arms are, however, impaled. His second wife was the daughter (but not the heir) of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, but she was coheir of her mother, the Baroness Lisle.

FIG. 754.--Arms of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, K.G.: Quarterly, 1 and 4, gules, a lion rampant within a bordure engrailed or (Talbot); 2 and 3, argent, two lions passant in pale gules (Strange); impaling the arms of his first wife whose Peerage he enjoyed, viz.: quarterly, 1 and 4, argent, a bend between six martlets gules (Furnival); 2 and 3, or, a fret gules (Verdon); and upon an escutcheon of pretence the arms of the mother of his second wife (to whom she was coheir, conveying her mother's Peerage to her son), viz.: 1 and 4, gules, a lion passant guardant argent, crowned or (Lisle); 2 and 3, argent, a chevron gules (Tyes). (From MS. Reg. 15, E. vi.)

It should be borne in mind that even in Great Britain an inescutcheon en surtout does not always mean an heiress-wife. The Earl of Mar and Kellie bears an inescutcheon surmounted by an earl's coronet for his Earldom of Kellie, and other instances are to be found in the arms of Cumming-Gordon (see Plate III.), whilst Sir Hector Maclean Hay, Bart., thus bears his pronominal arms over his quarterings in continental fashion. Inescutcheons of augmentation occur in the arms of the Dukes of Marlborough and Wellington, Lord Newton, and on the shields of Newman, Wolfe, and others.

Under the Commonwealth the Great Seals of Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard, as Protectors, bore a shield of arms: "Quarterly, 1 and 4, argent, a cross gules (for England); 2. azure, a saltire argent (for Scotland); 3. azure, a harp or, stringed argent (for Ireland);" and upon these quarterings en surtout an escutcheon of the personal arms of Cromwell: "Sable, a lion rampant argent."

In the heraldry of the Continent of Europe it has long been the custom for an elected sovereign to place his hereditary arms in an escutcheon en surtout above those of his dominions. As having obtained the crown by popular election, the Kings of the Hellenes also place en surtout upon the arms of the Greek kingdom ("Azure, a Greek cross couped argent") an escutcheon of their personal arms. Another instance is to be found in the arms of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Whilst all the descendants of the late Prince Consort (other than his Majesty King Edward VII.) bear in England the Royal Arms of this country, differenced by their respective labels with an escutcheon of Saxony en surtout as Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony, the late Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha bore {542} the arms of Saxony, placing the differenced Royal shield of this country en surtout.

We now come to the subject of quartering. Considering the fact that every single text-book on armory gives the ordinary rules for the marshalling of quarterings, it is strange how many mistakes are made, and how extremely funny are the ideas of some people upon the subject of quartering. As has already been stated, the rules of quartering are governed by the simple, but essential and important fact, that every quartering exhibited means the representation in blood of some particular person. Quarterings, other than those of augmentation, can only be inherited from or through those female ancestors who are in themselves heirs or coheirs in blood, or whose issue subsequently become in a later generation the representatives of any ancestor in the male line of that said female ancestor. Briefly speaking, a woman is an heiress, first, if she is only child; second, if all her brothers die without issue in her own lifetime; and third, if the entire issue, male and female, of her brothers, becomes extinct in her own lifetime. A woman becomes an "heiress in her issue," as it is termed, if she die before her brothers, if and when all the descendants of her brothers become absolutely extinct.

If the wife be either an heir or coheir, she transmits after her death to all her children the arms and quarterings--as quarterings to add to their paternal arms, and as such only--which she was entitled to place upon her own lozenge.

The origin and theory of quartering is as follows: If the daughter be an heiress or coheiress she represents either wholly or in part her father and his branch of the family, even if "his branch" only commenced with himself. Now in the days when the science of armory was slowly evolving itself there was no Married Women's Property Act, and the husband ipso facto became to all intents and purposes possessed of and enjoyed the rights of his wife. But it was at the same time only a possession and enjoyment by courtesy, and not an actual possession in fee, for the reversion remained with the wife's heirs, and did not pass to the heirs of the husband; for in cases where the husband or wife had been previously married, or where there was no issue of their marriage, their heirs would not be identical. Of course during the lifetime of his wife he could not actually represent his wife's family, and consequently could not quarter the arms, but in right of his wife he "pretended" to the representation of her house, and consequently the inescutcheon of her arms is termed an "escutcheon of pretence."

After the death of a wife her children immediately and actually become the representatives of their mother, and are as such entitled of right to quarter the arms of their mother's family. {543}

The earliest example which has been discovered at the present time of the use of a quartered coat of arms is afforded by the seal of Joanna of Ponthieu, second wife of Ferdinand III., King of Castile and Leon, in 1272. This seal bears on its reverse in a vesica the triple-towered castles of Castile, and the rampant lion of Leon, repeated as in the modern quarterings of Spain. There is, however, no separation of the quarters by a line of partition. This peculiarity will be also noticed as existing in the quartered coats of Hainault a quarter of a century later. The quartered coat of Castile and Leon remains upon the monument in Westminster Abbey erected in memory of Eleanor of Castile, who died in 1290, the first wife of Edward I.

Providing the wife be an heiress--and for the remainder of this chapter, which deals only with quarterings, this will be assumed--the son of a marriage after the death of his mother quarters her arms with those of his father, that is, he divides his shield into four quarters, and places the arms of his father in the first and fourth quarters, and the arms of his mother in the second and third. That is the root, basis, and original rule of all the rules of quartering, but it may be here remarked, that no man is entitled to quarter the arms of his mother whilst she is alive, inasmuch as she is alive to represent herself and her family, and her issue cannot assume the representation whilst she is alive.

FIG. 755.--Arms of Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby (d. 1572); Quarterly, 1. quarterly, i. and iiii., argent, on a bend azure, three bucks' heads caboshed or (Stanley); ii. and iii., or, on a chief indented azure, three bezants (Lathom); 2 and 3, gules, three legs in armour conjoined at the thigh and flexed at the knee proper, garnished and spurred or (for the Lordship of Man); 4. quarterly, i. and iiii., gules, two lions passant in pale argent (for Strange); ii. and iii., argent, a fess and a canton gules (for Wydeville). The arms on the escutcheon of pretence are not those of his wife (Anne Hastings), who was not an heiress, and they seem difficult to account for unless they are a coat for Rivers or some other territorial lordship inherited from the Wydeville family. The full identification of the quarterings borne by Anthony, Lord Rivers, would probably help in determining the point.

But it should not be imagined that the definite rules which exist at the moment had any such unalterable character in early times. Husbands are found to have quartered the arms of their wives if they were heiresses, and if important lordships devolved through the marriage. Territorial arms of dominion were quartered with personal arms (Fig. 755), quarterings of augmentation were granted, and the present system is the endeavour to reconcile all the varying circumstances and precedents which exist. One point, however, stands out clearly from all ancient examples, viz. that quartering meant quartering, and a shield was supposed to have but four quarters upon it. Consequently we find that instead of the elaborate schemes now in vogue showing {544} 10, 20, 50, or 100 quarterings, the shield had but four; and this being admitted and recognised, it became essential that the four most important should be shown, and consequently we find that quarterings were selected in a manner which would seem to us haphazard. Paternal quarterings were dropped and the result has been that many coats of arms are now known as the arms of a family with quite a different surname from that of the family with which they originated. The matter was of little consequence in the days when the "upper-class" and arms-bearing families were few in number. Every one knew how Stafford derived his Royal descent, and that it was not male upon male, so no confusion resulted from the Earls of Buckingham giving the Royal coat precedence before their paternal quartering of Stafford (see Fig. 756), or from their using only the Woodstock version of the Royal Arms; but as time went on the upper classes became more numerous, arms-bearing ancestors by the succession of generations increased in number, and while in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it would be a physical impossibility for any man to have represented one hundred different heiresses of arms-bearing families, in later days such became the case. The result has been the necessity to formulate those strict and rigid rules which for modern purposes must be conformed to, and it is futile and childish to deduce a set of rules from ancient and possibly isolated examples originating in and suitable for the simpler genealogical circumstances of an earlier day, and assert that it is equally permissible to adopt them at the moment, or to marshal a modern shield accordingly.

FIG. 756.--Arms of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1521): Quarterly, 1 and 4, quarterly, i. and iiii., France; ii. and iii., England, within the bordure argent of Thomas of Woodstock; 2 and 3, or, a chevron gules (for Stafford). (From MS. Add. 22, 306.)

The first attempt to break away from the four quarters of a shield was the initiation of the system of grand quarters (see Figs. 755 and 756). By this means the relative importance could roughly be shown. Supposing a man had inherited a shield of four quarters and then married a wife in whom was vested a peerage, he naturally wished to display the arms connected with that peerage, for these were of greater importance than his own four quarterings. The problem was how to introduce the fifth. In some cases we find it borne in pretence, but in other cases, particularly in a later generation, we find that important quarter given the whole of a quarter of the shield to itself, the other four being conjoined together and displayed so as to occupy a similar space. These, therefore, became sub-quarters. The system also had advantages, because it permitted coats which by constant quartering had become {545} indivisible to be perpetuated in this form. So definite was this rule, that in only one of the series of Garter plates anterior to the Tudor period is any shield found containing more than four quarters, though many of these are grand quarters containing other coats borne sub-quarterly. The one instance which I refer to as an exception is the shield of the Duke D'Urbino, and it is quite possible that this should not be quoted as an instance in point. He appears to have borne in the ordinary way four quarters, but he subsequently added thereto two quarterings which may or may not have been one and the same coat of arms by way of augmentation. These he placed in pale in the centre of the others, thus making the shield apparently one of six quarters.

FIG. 757.--Arms of George Nevill, Baron Abergavenny (d. 1535): Quarterly, 1. gules, on a saltire argent, a rose of the field (Nevill); 2. chequy or and azure (Warenne); 3. or, three chevrons gules (Clare); 4. quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret or, over all a bend sable (Le Despencer); 4. gules, on a fess between six cross crosslets or, a crescent sable (for Beauchamp). (Add. MS. 22, 306.)

But one is safe in the assertion that during the Plantagenet period no more than four quarters were ordinarily placed upon a shield. Then we come to the brief period of "squeezed in" quarterings (Figs. 757 and 758). In the early Visitations we get instances of six, eight, and even a larger number, and the start once being made, and the number of four relinquished, there was of course no reason why it should not be extended indefinitely. This appears to have rapidly become the case, and we find that schemes of quarterings are now proved and recorded officially in England and Ireland some of which exceed 200 in number. The record number of officially proved and recorded quarterings is at present held by the family of Lloyd, of Stockton in Chirbury, co. Salop, but many of the quarterings of this family are mere repetition owing to constant intermarriages, and to the fact that a single Welsh line of male descent often results in a number of different shields. Welsh arms did not originally have the hereditary unchangeability we are accustomed to in English heraldry, and moreover a large proportion are later inventions borne to denote descent and are not arms actually used by those they stand for, so that the recorded scheme {546} of the quarterings of Mr. Money-Kyrle, or of the sister Countesses of Yarborough and Powis, respectively Baroness Fauconberg and Conyers and Baroness Darcy de Knayth are decidedly more enviable. Nobody of course attempts to bear such a number. In Scotland, however, even to the present day, the system of four quarterings is still adhered to. The result is that in Scotland the system of grand quarterings is still pursued, whilst in England it is almost unknown, except in cases where coats of arms have for some reason or another become indivisible. This is a very patent difficulty when it becomes necessary to marshal indivisible Scottish coats with English ones, and the system of cadency adopted in Scotland, which has its chief characteristic in the employment of bordures, makes the matter sometimes very far from simple. The system adopted at the present time in the case of a Royal Licence, for example, to bear a Scottish name and arms where the latter is a coat of many quarterings within a bordure, is to treat such coat as made indivisible by and according to the most recent matriculation. That coat is then treated as a grand quartering of an equivalent value to the pronominal coat in England.

FIG. 758.--Arms of Henry Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland (d. 1527): Quarterly, 1. quarterly, i. and iiii., or, a lion rampant azure (Percy); ii. and iii., gules, three lucies haurient argent (Lucy); 2. azure, five fusils conjoined in fess or (for Percy); 3. barry of six or and vert, a bendlet gules (Poynings); 4. gules, three lions passant in pale argent, a bendlet azure (FitzPayne), or three piles azure (Brian).

But reverting to the earlier chart, by the aid of which heirship was demonstrated, the following were entitled to transmit the Cilfowyr arms as quarterings. Mary, Ellen, Blanche, Grace, Muriel, and Dorothy all had the right to transmit. By the death of Dorothy v.p. Alice and Annie both became entitled. Maria Jane and Hannah would have been entitled to transmit Sherwin and Cilfowyr, but not Cilfowyr alone, if there had been no arms for Sherwin, though they could have transmitted Sherwin alone if there had been arms for Sherwin and none for Cilfowyr. Harriet would have transmitted the arms of Cilfowyr if she had survived, and Ada would, each subject to differences as has been previously explained.

As has been already explained, every woman is entitled to bear upon a lozenge in her own lifetime the arms, quarterings, and difference marks which belonged to her father. If her mother were an heiress she adds her mother's arms to her father's, and her mother's quarterings also, marshalling the whole into a correct sequence, and placing the said sequence of quarterings upon a lozenge. Such are the armorial bearings of a daughter. If the said daughter be not an heraldic heiress in blood she cannot transmit either arms or quarterings to her descendants. Needless to say, no woman, heiress or non-heiress, can now transmit a crest, and no woman can bear either crest, helmet, mantling, or motto. A daughter not being an heiress simply confers the right upon her husband to impale upon his shield such arms and difference marks as her father bore in his own right. If an heiress possessing arms marry a man with illegal arms, or a man making no pretensions to arms, her children have no arms at all, and really inherit {547} nothing; and the rights, such as they are, to the arms of the mother as a quartering remain, and must remain, dormant unless and until arms are established for their father's line, inasmuch as they can only inherit armorially from their mother through their father. In England it is always optional for a man to have arms assigned to him to fill in any blanks which would otherwise mar his scheme of quarterings.

Let us now see how various coats of arms are marshalled as quarterings into one achievement.

The original theory of quartering upon which all rules are based is that after a marriage with an heiress, necessitating for the children the combination of the two coats, the shield is divided into four quarters. These four are numbered from the top left-hand (the dexter) corner (No. 1) across towards the sinister (No. 2) side of the shield; then the next row is numbered in the same way (Nos. 3 and 4). This rule as to the method of numbering holds good for any number of quarterings.

In allocating the position of the different coats to their places in the scheme of quarterings, the pronominal coat must always be in the first quartering.

In a simple case (the exceptions will presently be referred to) that places the arms of the father in the first and fourth quarters, and the arms of the mother in the second and third; such, of course, being on the assumption that the father possessed only a simple coat without quarterings, and that the mother was in the same position. The children therefore possess a coat of four quarters (Fig. 759). Suppose a son of theirs in his turn marries another heiress, also possessing only a simple coat without quarterings, he bears arms as Fig. 760, and the grandchildren descending from the aforesaid marriage put that last-mentioned coat in the third quarter, and the coat, though still of only four quarters, is: 1 and 4, the pronominal coat; 2, the first heiress; 3, the second (Fig. 761).

If another single quartering is brought in, in a later generation, that takes the place of No. 4. So far it is all plain sailing, but very {548} few text-books carry one beyond this point. Another single quartering inherited gives five quarterings to be displayed on one shield. The usual plan is to repeat the first quartering, and gives you six, which are then arranged in two rows of three. If the shield be an impaled shield one sometimes sees them arranged in three rows of two, but this is unusual though not incorrect. But five quarterings are sometimes arranged in two rows, three in the upper and two in the lower, and with a shield of the long pointed variety this plan may be adopted with advantage. Subsequent quarterings, as they are introduced by subsequent marriages, take their places, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on ad infinitum.

In arranging them on one shield, the order in which they devolve (according to the pedigree and not necessarily according to the date order in which they are inherited) must be rigidly adhered to; but a person is perfectly at liberty (1) to repeat the first quartering at the end to make an even number or not at his pleasure, but no more than the first quartering must be repeated in such cases; (2) to arrange the quarters in any number of rows he may find most convenient according to the shape of the space the quarterings will occupy.

Upon the Continent it is usual to specify the number and position of the lines by which the shield is divided. Thus, while an English herald would say simply, Quarterly of six, and leave it to the painter's or engraver's taste to arrange the quarterings in three rows of two, or in two rows of three, a French or German herald would ordinarily specify the arrangement to be used in distinct terms.

If a man possessing only a simple coat of arms without quarterings marry an heiress with a number of quarterings (e.g. say twenty), he himself places the arms and quarterings of his wife in pretence. Their children eventually, as a consequence, inherit twenty-one quarterings. The first is the coat of their father, the second is the first coat of the mother, and the remaining nineteen follow in a regular sequence, according to their position upon their mother's achievement.

To sum the rule up, it is necessary first to take all the quarterings inherited from the father and arrange them in a proper sequence, and then follow on in the same sequence with the arms and quarterings inherited from the mother.

The foregoing explanations should show how generation by generation quarterings are added to a paternal shield, but I have found that many of those who possess a knowledge of the laws to this extent are yet at a loss, given a pedigree, to marshal the resulting quarterings in their right order.

Given your pedigree--the first quartering must be the pronominal coat (I am here presuming no change of name or arms has occurred), which is the coat of the strict male line of descent. Then follow this male line back as far as it is known. The second quartering is the {549} coat of the first heiress who married your earliest ancestor in the male line who is known to have married an heiress. Then after her coat will follow all the quarterings which she was entitled to and which she has "brought in" to your family. Having exhausted these, you then follow your male line down to the next heiress, adding her arms as a quartering to those already arranged, and following it by her quarterings. The same plan must be pursued until you arrive at your own name upon the pedigree. Unless some exceptional circumstance has arisen (and such exceptions will presently be found detailed at length), all the quarterings are of equal heraldic value, and must be the same size when displayed.

If after having worked out your quarterings you find that you have more than you care to use, you are quite at liberty to make a selection, omitting any number, but it is entirely wrong to display quarterings without those quarterings which brought them into the paternal line. Supposing your name to be Brown, you must put the Brown arms in the first quarter, but at your pleasure you can quarter the arms of each single heiress who married an ancestor of yours in the male line (i.e. who herself became Mrs. Brown), or you can omit the whole or a part. But supposing one of these, Mrs. Brown (née Smith), was entitled to quarter the arms of Jones, which arms of Jones had brought in the arms of Robinson, you are not at liberty to quarter the arms of Jones without quartering Smith, and if you wish to display the arms of Robinson you must also quarter the arms of Jones to bring in Robinson and the arms of Smith to bring in Robinson and Jones to your own Brown achievement. You can use Brown only: or quarterly, 1 and 4, Brown; 2 and 3, Smith: or 1 and 4, Brown; 2. Smith; 3. Jones: or quarterly, 1. Brown; 2. Smith; 3. Jones; 4. Robinson; but you are not entitled to quarter: 1 and 4, Brown; 2. Jones; 3. Robinson, because Smith, which brought in Jones and Robinson, has been omitted, and there was never a match between Brown and Jones.

Quarterings signifying nothing beyond mere representation are not compulsory, and their use or disuse is quite optional.

So much for the general rules of quartering. Let us now consider certain cases which require rules to themselves.

It is possible for a daughter to be the sole heir or coheir of her mother whilst not being the heir of her father, as in the following imaginary pedigree:--

1st wife (an heiress). 2nd wife. MARY CONYERS=JOHN DARCY=MARGARET FAUCONBERG. | | ------------- -------------- | | | JOAN (only daughter), THOMAS. HENRY. heir of her mother but not of her father.

{550} In this case Joan is not the heir of her father, inasmuch as he has sons Thomas and Henry, but she is the heir of her mother and the only issue capable of inheriting and transmitting the Conyers arms and quarterings. Joan is heir of her mother but not of her father.

The husband of Joan can either impale the arms of Darcy as having married a daughter of John Darcy, or he can place upon an escutcheon of pretence arms to indicate that he has married the heiress of Conyers. But it would be quite incorrect for him to simply place Conyers in pretence, because he has not married a Miss Conyers. What he must do is to charge the arms of Conyers with a dexter canton of the arms of Darcy and place this upon his escutcheon of pretence.[30] The children will quarter the arms of Conyers with the canton of Darcy and inherit likewise all the quarterings to which Mary Conyers succeeded, but the Conyers arms must be always thereafter charged with the arms of Darcy on a canton, and no right accrues to the Darcy quarterings.

The following curious, but quite genuine case, which was pointed out to me by the late Ulster King of Arms, presents a set of circumstances absolutely unique, and it still remains to be decided what is the correct method to adopt:--

1st wife. 2nd wife. Lady MARY, dau. and = WILLIAM ST. LAWRENCE, = MARGARET, dau. of coheir of Thomas | 2nd Earl of Howth. | William Burke. Bermingham, Earl | | of Louth. Married | | 1777, died 1793. | ---------------------- | | | | THOMAS ST. LAWRENCE, | ----------------------- 3rd Earl of Howth. | | | | | Other issue. | Three other daughters | and coheirs of their | mother. | Lady ISABELLA ST. LAWRENCE, = WILLIAM RICHARD ANNESLEY, = PRISCILLA, 2nd dau. and coheir of her | 3rd Earl of Annesley. | 2nd dau. of mother, but not heir of her | | Hugh Moore. father, therefore entitled | | to transmit the arms of | | Bermingham with those of | ------------------- St. Lawrence on a canton. | | | First wife of Earl | WILLIAM, 4th Earl HUGH, 5th Earl Annesley. Married 1803, | of Annesley. of Annesley. died 1827. | ------------ | Lady MARY ANNESLEY, only child and = WILLIAM JOHN McGUIRE sole heir of her mother and of Rostrevor. coheir of her grandmother, but not heir of her father or of her grandfather. She is therefore entitled to transmit the arms of Bermingham with St. Lawrence on a canton plus Annesley on a canton. Married 1828.

How the arms of Bermingham are to be charged with both St. Lawrence and Annesley remains to be seen. I believe Ulster favoured {551} two separate cantons, dexter and sinister respectively, but the point did not come before him officially, and I know of no official decision which affords a precedent.

The reverse of the foregoing affords another curious point when a woman is the heir of her father but not the heir of her mother:--

JOHN SMITH=MARY JONES. | 1st husband. | 2nd husband. JOHN WILLIAMS = ETHEL SMITH, = HENRY ROBERTS. | only child | | and heir. | ------------------- ------- | | ALICE WILLIAMS, = ARTHUR ELLIS. EDWARD ROBERTS, only child and | heir of his mother. heir of John | | Williams. | Issue. | THEODORE ELLIS, who claims to quarter: 1 and 4, Ellis; 2. Williams; 3. Smith.

It is officially admitted (see the introduction to Burke's "General Armory") that the claim is accurately made. The process of reasoning is probably thus. John Williams places upon an escutcheon of pretence the arms of Smith, and Alice Williams succeeds in her own right to the arms of her mother because the latter was an heiress, and for herself is entitled to bear, as would a son, the arms of the two parents quarterly; and having so inherited, Alice Williams being herself an heiress, is entitled to transmit. At any rate Arthur Ellis is entitled to impale or place upon his escutcheon of pretence Williams and Smith quarterly. To admit the right for the descendants to quarter the arms Arthur Ellis so bore is no more than a logical progression, but the eventual result appears faulty, because we find Theodore Ellis quartering the arms of Smith, whilst the representation of Smith is in the line of Edward Roberts. This curious set of circumstances, however, is rare in the extreme.

It frequently happens, in devising a scheme of quarterings, that a person may represent heiresses of several families entitled to bear arms, but to whom the pedigree must be traced through an heiress of another family which did not possess arms. Consequently any claim to quarterings inherited through the non-armorial heiress is dormant, and the quarterings must not be used or inserted in any scheme drawn up. It is always permissible, however, to petition for arms to be granted to be borne for that non-armorial family for the purpose of introducing the quarterings in question, and such a grant having been made, the dormant claim then becomes operative and the new coat is introduced, followed by the dormant quartering in precisely the same manner as would have been the case if the arms granted had always existed. Grants of this character are constantly being obtained. {552}

When a Royal Licence to assume or change name and arms is granted it very considerably affects the question of quartering, and many varying circumstances attending these Royal Licences make the matter somewhat intricate. If the Royal Licence is to assume a name and arms in lieu of those previously used, this means that for everyday use the arms are changed, the right to the old arms lapsing except for the purpose of a scheme of quarterings. The new coat of arms under the terms of the Royal Licence, which requires it first "to be exemplified in our Royal College of Arms, otherwise this our Royal Licence to be void and of none effect," is always so exemplified, this exemplification being from the legal point of view equivalent to a new grant of the arms to the person assuming them. The terms of the Royal Licence have always carefully to be borne in mind, particularly in the matter of remainder, because sometimes these exemplifications are for a limited period or intended to devolve with specified property, and a Royal Licence only nullifies a prior right to arms to the extent of the terms recited in the Letters Patent of exemplification. In the ordinary way, however, such an exemplification is equivalent to a new grant affecting all the descendants. When it is assumed in lieu, for the ordinary purpose of use the new coat of arms takes the place of the old one, but the right to the old one remains in theory to a certain extent, inasmuch as its existence is necessary in any scheme of quartering to bring in any quarterings previously inherited, and these cannot be displayed with the new coat unless they are preceded by the old one. Quarterings, however, which are brought into the family through a marriage in the generation in which the Royal Licence is obtained, or in a subsequent generation, can be displayed with the new coat without the interposition of the old one.

If the Royal Licence be to bear the name of a certain family in lieu of a present name, and to bear the arms of that family quarterly with the arms previously borne, the quarterly coat is then exemplified. In an English or Irish Royal Licence the coat of arms for the name assumed is placed in the first and the fourth quarters, and the old paternal arms figure in the second and third. This is an invariable rule. The quarterly coat thus exemplified becomes an indivisible coat for the new name, and it is not permissible to subsequently divide these quarterings. They become as much one coat of arms as "azure, a bend or" is the coat of arms of Scrope. If this quarterly coat is to be introduced in any scheme of quarterings it will only occupy the same space as any other single quartering and counts only as one, though it of course is in reality a grand quartering. In devising a scheme of quarterings for which a sub-quarterly coat of this character exemplified under a Royal Licence is the pronominal coat, that {553} quarterly coat is placed in the first quarter. Next to it is placed the original coat of arms borne as the pronominal coat before the Royal Licence and exemplified in the second and third sub-quarters of the first quarter. When here repeated it occupies an entire quarter. Next to it are placed the whole of the quarterings belonging to the family in the order in which they occur. If the family whose name has been assumed is represented through an heiress that coat of arms is also repeated in its proper position and in that place in which it would have appeared if unaffected by the Royal Licence. But if it be the coat of arms of a family from whom there is no descent, or of whom there is no representation, the fact of the Royal Licence does not give any further right to quarter it beyond its appearance in the pronominal grand quartering. The exact state of the case is perhaps best illustrated by the arms of Reid-Cuddon. The name of the family was originally Reid, and representing an heiress of the Cuddons of Shaddingfield Hall they obtained a Royal Licence to take the name and arms of Cuddon in addition to the name and arms of Reid, becoming thereafter Reid-Cuddon. The arms were exemplified in due course, and the achievement then became: Quarterly, 1 and 4, Reid-Cuddon sub-quarterly, 2. the arms of Reid, 3. the arms of Cuddon. In Scotland no such thing as a Royal Licence exists, the matter being determined merely by a rematriculation following upon a voluntary change of name. There is no specified order or position for the arms of the different names, and the arrangement of the various quarterings is left to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Thus in the arms of Anstruther-Duncan the arms of Anstruther are in the first quarter, and the matter is always largely governed by the importance of the respective estates and the respective families. In England this is not the case, because it is an unalterable rule that the arms of the last or principal surname if there be two, or the arms of the one surname if that be the case when the arms of two families are quartered, must always go in the 1st and 4th quarters. If three names are assumed by Royal Licence, the arms of the last name go in the 1st and 4th quarters, and the last name but one in the second quarter, and of the first name in the third. These cases are, however, rare. But no matter how many names are assumed, and no matter how many original coats of arms the shield as exemplified consists of, it thereafter becomes an indivisible coat.

When a Royal Licence is issued to an illegitimate person to bear the name and arms of another family, no right is conferred to bear the quarterings of that family even subject to difference marks. The Royal Licence is only applicable to whatever arms were the pronominal coat used with the name assumed. Though instances {554} certainly can be found in some of the Visitation Books and other ancient records of a coat with quarterings, the whole debruised by a bendlet sinister, notably in the case of a family of Talbot, where eight quarters are so marked, the fact remains that this practice has long been definitely considered incorrect, and is now never permitted. If a Royal Licence is issued to an illegitimate woman the exemplification is to herself personally, for in the eyes of the law she has no relatives; and though she may be one of a large family, her descendants are entitled to quarter the arms with the marks of distinction exemplified to her because such quartering merely indicates the representation of that one woman, who in the eyes of the law stands alone and without relatives. In the case of a Royal Licence to take a name and arms subject to these marks of distinction for illegitimacy, and in cases where the arms to be assumed are a sub-quarterly coat, the mark of distinction, which in England is now invariably a bordure wavy, will surround both quarterings, which remain an indivisible coat.

If an augmentation is granted to a person whose pronominal coat is sub-quarterly, that augmentation, whatever form it may assume, is superimposed upon all quarterings. Thus a chief of augmentation would go across the top of the shield, the four quarters being displayed below, and the whole of this shield would be only one quartering in any scheme of quartering. An inescutcheon is superimposed over all. If the augmentation take the form of a quartering, then the pronominal coat is a grand quartering, equivalent in size to the augmentation. If a person entitled to a sub-quarterly coat and a double name obtains a Royal Licence to bear another name and arms, and to bear the arms he has previously borne quarterly with those he has assumed, the result would be: Quarterly, 1 and 4, the new coat assumed, quarterly 2 and 3, the arms he has previously borne sub-quarterly. But it should be noticed that the arrangements of coats of arms under a Royal Licence largely depends upon the wording of the document by which authority is given by the Sovereign. The wording of the document in its terms is based upon the wording of the petition, and within reasonable limits any arrangement which is desired is usually permitted, so that care should be taken as to the wording of the petition.

A quartering of augmentation is always placed in the first quarter of a shield, but it becomes indivisible from and is depicted sub-quarterly with the paternal arms; for instance, the Dukes of Westminster for the time being, but not other members of the family, bear as an augmentation the arms of the city of Westminster in the 1st and 4th quarters of his shield, and the arms of Grosvenor in the 2nd and 3rd, but this coat of Westminster and Grosvenor is an indivisible {555} quarterly coat which together would only occupy the first quarter in a shield of quarterings. Then the second one would be the arms of Grosvenor alone, which would be followed by the quarterings previously inherited.

If under a Royal Licence a name is assumed and the Royal Licence makes no reference to the arms of the family, the arms for all purposes remain unchanged and as if no Royal Licence had ever been issued. If the Royal Licence issued to a family simply exemplifies a single coat of arms, it is quite wrong to introduce any other coat of arms to convert this single coat into a sub-quarterly one.

To all intents and purposes it may be stated that in Scotland there are still only four quarters in a shield, and if more than four coats are introduced grand quarterings are employed. Grand quarterings are very frequent in Scottish armory. The Scottish rules of quartering follow no fixed principle, and the constant rematriculations make it impossible to deduce exact rules; and though roughly approximating to the English ones, no greater generalisation can be laid down than the assertion that the most recent matriculation of an ancestor governs the arms and quarterings to be displayed.

A royal quartering is never subdivided.

In combining Scottish and English coats of arms into one scheme of quartering, it is usual if possible to treat the coat of arms as matriculated in Scotland as a grand quartering equivalent in value to any other of the English quarterings. This, however, is not always possible in cases where the matriculation itself creates grand quarterings and sub-quarterings; and for a scheme of quarterings in such a case it is more usual for the Scottish matriculation to be divided up into its component parts, and for these to be used as simple quarterings in succession to the English ones, regardless of any bordure which may exist in the Scottish matriculation. It cannot, of course, be said that such a practice is beyond criticism, though it frequently remains the only practical way of solving the difficulty.

Until comparatively recent times, if amongst quarterings inherited the Royal Arms were included, it was considered a fixed, unalterable rule that these should be placed in the first quarter, taking precedence of the pronominal coat, irrespective of their real position according to the date or pedigree place of introduction. This rule, however, has long since been superseded, and Royal quarterings now take their position on the same footing as the others. It very probably arose from the misconception of the facts concerning an important case which doubtless was considered a precedent. The family of Mowbray, after their marriage with the heiress of Thomas de Brotherton, used either the arms of Brotherton alone, these being England differenced {556} by a label, or else placed them in the first quarter of their shield. Consequently from this precedent a rule was deduced that it was permissible and correct to give a Royal quartering precedence over all others. The position of the Mowbrays, Dukes of Norfolk, as Earls Marshal no doubt led to their own achievement being considered an exemplary model. But it appears to have been overlooked that the Mowbrays bore these Royal Arms of Brotherton not as an inherited quartering but as a grant to themselves. Richard II. apparently granted them permission to bear the arms of Edward the Confessor impaled with the arms of Brotherton, the whole between the two Royal ostrich feathers (Fig. 675), and consequently, the grant having been made, the Mowbrays were under no necessity to display the Mowbray or the Segrave arms to bring in the arms of Brotherton. A little later a similar case occurred with the Stafford family, who became sole heirs-general of Thomas of Woodstock, and consequently entitled to bear his arms as a quartering. The matter appears to have been settled at a chapter of the College of Arms, and the decision arrived at was as follows:--

Cott. MS., Titus, C. i. fol. 404, in handwriting of end of sixteenth century.

[An order made for Henry Duke of Buckingham to beare the Armes of Thomas of Woodstock alone without any other Armes to bee quartered therewith. Anno 13 E 4.]

Memorandum that in the yeare of the Reigne of our Soveraign Lord King Edward the iiij^{th}, the Thurtein in the xviij^{tin} day of ffeverir, it was concluded in a Chapitre of the office of Armes that where a nobleman is descended lenyalle Ineritable to iij. or iiij. Cotes and afterward is ascended to a Cotte neir to the King and of his royall bloud, may for his most onneur bere the same Cootte alone, and none lower Coottes of Dignite to be quartered therewith. As my Lord Henry Duke of Buckingham, Eirll of Harford, Northamton, and Stafford, Lord of Breknoke and of Holdernes, is assended to the Coottes and ayer to Thomas of Woodstoke, Duke of Glocestre and Sonne to King Edward the third, hee may beire his Cootte alone. And it was so Concluded by [Claurancieulx King of Armes, Marche King of Armes, Gyen King of Armes, Windesor Herauld, Fawcon Herauld, Harfford Herald].

But I imagine that this decision was in all probability founded upon the case of the Mowbrays, which was not in itself an exact precedent, because with the Staffords there appears to have been no such Royal grant as existed with the Mowbrays. Other instances at about this period can be alluded to, but though it must be admitted that the rule existed at one time, it has long since been officially overridden.

A territorial coat or a coat of arms borne to indicate the possession of a specific title is either placed in the first quarter or borne in {557} pretence; see the arms of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. A singular instance of a very exceptional method of marshalling occurs in the case of the arms of the Earl of Caithness. He bears four coats of arms, some being stated to be territorial coats, quarterly, dividing them by the cross engrailed sable from his paternal arms of Sinclair. The arms of the Earls of Caithness are thus marshalled: "Quarterly, 1. azure, within a Royal tressure a ship with furled sails all or." For Orkney: "2 and 3. or, a lion rampant gules." For Spar (a family in possession of the Earldom of Caithness before the Sinclairs): "4. Azure, a ship in sail or, for Caithness"; and over all, dividing the quarters, a cross engrailed "sable," for Sinclair. The Barons Sinclair of Sweden (so created 1766, but extinct ten years later) bore the above quartered coats as cadets of Caithness, but separated the quarters, not by the engrailed cross sable of Sinclair, but by a cross patée throughout ermine. In an escutcheon en surtout they placed the Sinclair arms: "Argent, a cross engrailed sable"; and, as a mark of cadency, they surrounded the main escutcheon with "a bordure chequy or and gules." This arrangement was doubtless suggested by the Royal Arms of Denmark, the quarterings of which have been for so many centuries separated by the cross of the Order of the Dannebrog: "Argent, a cross patée throughout fimbriated gules." In imitation of this a considerable number of the principal Scandinavian families use a cross patée throughout to separate the quarters of their frequently complicated coats. The quarterings in these cases are often not indicative of descent from different families, but were all included in the original grant of armorial bearings. On the centre of the cross thus used, an escutcheon, either of augmentation or of the family arms, is very frequently placed en surtout.

The main difference between British and foreign usage with regard to quartering is this, that in England quarterings are usually employed to denote simply descent from an heiress, or representation in blood; in Scotland they also implied the possession of lordships. In foreign coats the quarterings are often employed to denote the possession of fiefs acquired in other ways than by marriage (e.g. by bequest or purchase), or the jus expectationis, the right of succession to such fiefs in accordance with certain agreements.

In foreign heraldry the base of the quartered shield is not unfrequently cut off by a horizontal line, forming what is known as a Champagne, and the space thus made is occupied by one or more coats. At other times a pile with curved sides runs from the base some distance into the quartered shield, which is then said to be enté en point, and this space is devoted to the display of one or more quarterings. The definite and precise British regulations which have grown up on the {558} subject of the marshalling of arms have no equivalent in the armorial laws of other countries.

Very rarely quartering is affected per saltire, as in the arms of Sicily and in a few coats of Spanish origin, but even as regards foreign armory the practice is so rare that it may be disregarded.

The laws of marshalling upon the Continent, and particularly in Germany, are very far from being identical with British heraldic practices.

The British method of impaling two coats of arms upon one shield to signify marriage is abroad now wholly discarded, and two shields are invariably made use of. These shields are placed side by side, the dexter shield being used to display the man's arms and the sinister those of the woman's family. The shields are tilted towards each other (the position is not quite identical with that which we term accollé). But--and this is a peculiarity practically unknown in England--the German practice invariably reverses the charges upon the dexter shield, so that the charges upon the two shields "respect" each other. This perhaps can be most readily understood by reference to Figs. 762 and 763. The former shows the simple arms of Von Bibelspurg, the latter the same coat allied with another. But it should be noted that letters or words, if they appear as charges upon the shield, are not reversed. This reversing of the charges is by no means an uncommon practice in Germany for other purposes. For instance, if the arms of a State are depicted surrounded by the arms of provinces, or if the arms of a reigning Sovereign are grouped within a bordure of the shields of other people, the charges on the shields to the dexter are almost invariably shown in reflection regarding the shield in the centre. This practice, resting only on what may be termed "heraldic courtesy," dates back to very early times, and is met with even in Rolls of Arms where the shields are all turned to face the centre. Such a system was adopted in Siebmacher's "Book of Arms." But what the true position of the {559} charges should be when represented upon a simple shield should be determined by the position of the helmet. It may be of interest to state that in St. George's Chapel at Windsor the early Stall plates as originally set up were all disposed so that helmets and charges alike faced the High Altar.

The conjunction of three coats of arms in Germany is effected as shown in Fig. 764. Although matrimonial alliance does not in Germany entail the conjunction of different coats of arms on one shield, such conjunction does occur in German heraldry, but it is comparable (in its meaning) with our rules of quartering and not with our rules of impalement. No such exact and definite rules exist in that country as are to be met with in our own to determine the choice of a method of conjunction, nor to indicate the significance to be presumed from whatever method may be found in use. Personal selection and the adaptability to any particular method of the tinctures and the charges themselves of the coats to be conjoined seem to be the determining factors, and the existing territorial attributes of German armory have a greater weight in marshalling than the principle of heirship which is now practically the sole governing factor in British heraldry. One must therefore content oneself with a brief recital of some of the various modes of conjunction which have been or are still practised. These include impalement per pale or per fess (Fig. 765) and dimidiation (Fig. 766), which is more usual on the Continent than it ever was in these kingdoms. The subdivision of the field, as with ourselves, is most frequently adopted; though we are usually confined to quartering, German armory knows no such restrictions. The most usual subdivisions are as given in Fig. 767. The ordinary quartered shield is met with in Fig. 768, which represents the arms of James III., Von Eltz, Elector and Archbishop of Treves (1567-1581), in which his personal arms of Eltz ("Per fess gules and argent, in chief a demi-lion issuing or") are quartered with the impersonal arms of his archbishopric, "Argent, a cross gules." Another method of conjunction is superimposition, by which the design of the one shield takes the form of an ordinary imposed {560} upon the other (Fig. 769). A curious method of conjoining three coats is by engrafting the third in base (Fig. 770). The constant use of the inescutcheon has been already referred to, and even early English armory (Figs. 706 and 710) has examples of the widespread Continental practice (which obtains largely in Spanish and Portuguese heraldry) of surrounding one coat with a bordure of another.

The German method of conjunction by incorporation has been frequently pleaded in British heraldry, in efforts to account for ancient arms, but with us (save for occasional use for cadency differencing at an early and for a limited period) such incorporation only results in and signifies an originally new coat, and not an authorised marshalling of existing arms of prior origin and authority. The German method can best be explained by two examples. Let us suppose a coat "per fess argent and gules," with which another coat "gules, a fleur-de-lis argent," is to be marshalled. The result would be "per fess argent and gules, a fleur-de-lis counterchanged." With smaller objects a more usual method would duplicate the charges, thus "per bend argent and azure," and "argent, a star of six points azure" would result in "per bend argent and azure, two stars of six points counterchanged" (Fig. 771). {561}