supporters, and doubtless those in use have originated in the old artistic
custom, previously referred to, of putting escutcheons of arms under the
guardianship of angels. They may be so deciphered upon an old stone carving
upon one of the municipal buildings in that city. The result has been that
two angels have been regularly adopted as the heraldic supporters of the
city arms. The point that renders them worthy of notice is that they are
invariably represented each standing upon its own little pile of clouds.

The arms of the Royal Burgh of Montrose (Forfarshire) afford an official
instance of another variety in the way of a compartment, which is a fixed
matter of blazon and not depending upon artistic fancy. The entry in Lyon
Register is as follows:--

"The Royal Burgh of Montrose gives for Ensignes Armoriall, Argent, a rose
gules. The shield adorned with helmet, mantling, and wreath suteable
thereto. And for a crest, a hand issuing from a cloud and reaching down a
garland of roses proper, supported by two mermaids aryseing from the sea
proper. The motto, 'Mare ditat Rosa decorat.' And for a revers, Gules, St.
Peter on the cross proper, with the keyes hanging at his girdle or. Which
Arms, &c., Ext. December 16, 1694."

An English example may be found in the case of the arms of {445}
Boston,[28] which are depicted with the supporters (again two mermaids)
rising from the sea, though to what extent the sea is a fixed and
unchangeable part of the achievement in this case is less a matter of
certainty.

Probably of all the curious "supporters" to be found in British armory,
those of the city of Southampton (Plate VII.) must be admitted to be the
most unusual. As far as the actual usage of the arms by the corporation is
concerned, one seldom if ever sees more than the simple shield employed.
This bears the arms: "Per fess gules and argent, three roses
counterchanged." But in the official record of the arms in one of the
Visitation books a crest is added, namely: "Upon a mount vert, a double
tower or, and issuing from the upper battlements thereof a demi-female
affronté proper, vested purpure, crined and crowned with an Eastern coronet
also or, holding in her dexter hand a sword erect point upwards argent,
pommel and hilt of the second, and in her sinister hand a balance sable,
the pans gold. The shield in the Visitation book rests upon a mount vert,
issuing from waves of the sea, and thereupon placed on either side of the
escutcheon a ship of two masts at anchor, the sails furled all proper, the
round top or, and from each masthead flying a banner of St. George, and
upon the stern of each vessel a lion rampant or, supporting the
escutcheon."

From the fact that in England the compartment is so much a matter of
course, it is scarcely ever alluded to, and the _term_ "Compartment" is
practically one peculiar to Scottish heraldry. It does not appear to be a
very ancient heraldic appendage, and was probably found to be a convenient
arrangement when shields were depicted erect instead of couché, so as to
supply a resting-place (or standpoint) for the supporters. In a few
instances the compartment appears on seals with couché shields, on which,
however, the supporters are usually represented as resting _on the sides of
the escutcheon_, and bearing up the helmet and crest, as already mentioned.
Sir George Mackenzie conjectures that the compartment "represents the
bearer's land and territories, though sometimes (he adds) it is bestowed in
recompense of some honourable action." Thus the Earls of Douglas are said
to have obtained the privilege of placing their supporters with a pale of
wood wreathed, because the doughty lord, in the reign of King Robert the
Bruce, defeated the English in Jedburgh Forest, and "caused wreathe and
impale," during the night, that part of the wood by which he conjectured
they might make their escape. Such a fenced compartment appears on the seal
of James Douglas, second Earl of Angus, "Dominus de Abernethie et Jedworth
Forest" (1434), on {446} that of George Douglas, fourth Earl (1459), and
also on those of several of his successors in the earldom (1511-1617). A
still earlier example, however, of a compartment "representing a park with
trees, &c., enclosed by a wattled fence," occurs on the seal of Walter
Stewart, Earl of Atholl (_c._ 1430), where the escutcheon is placed in the
entrance to the park between two trees. Nisbet refers to a seal of William,
first Earl of Douglas (1377), exhibiting a single supporter (a lion)
"sitting on a compartment like to a rising ground, with a tree growing out
of it, and semé of hearts, mullets, and cross crosslets," these being the
charges of Douglas and Mar in the escutcheon.

According to Sir George Mackenzie, these compartments were usually allowed
only to sovereign princes; and he further informs us that, besides the
Douglases, he knows of no other subject in Britain, except the Earl of
Perth, whose arms stand upon a compartment. In the case of the Perth
family, the compartment consists of a green hill or mount, semé of
caltraps[29] (or cheval-traps), with the relative motto, "Gang warily,"
above the achievement. "Albeit of late," says Mackenzie, "compartments are
become more common, and some families in Scotland have some creatures upon
which their achievement stands, as the Laird of Dundas, whose achievement
has for many hundreds of years stood upon a salamander in flames proper (a
device of the kings of France), and Robertson of Struan has a monstrous man
lying under the escutcheon chained, which was given him for his taking the
murderer of James I...." Such figures, however, as Nisbet remarks, cannot
properly be called compartments, having rather the character of devices;
while, in the case of the Struan achievement, the chained man would be more
accurately described as "an honourable supporter." Sir George Mackenzie
engraves "the coat of Denham of ould," viz. a stag's head "caboshed," below
a shield couché charged with three lozenges, or fusils, conjoined in bend.
In like manner, Nisbet represents the crest and motto of the Scotts of
Thirlstane, "by way of compartment," below the escutcheon of Lord Napier,
and a blazing star, with the legend "Luceo boreale," under that of Captain
Robert Seton, of the family of Meldrum; while in the case of the
illumination which accompanies the latest entry in the first volume of the
Lyon Register (1804), relative to the arms of John Hepburn Belshes of
Invermay, the trunk of an oak-tree sprouting forth anew is placed on a
compartment under the shield, with the motto, "Revirescit."

Two other instances of regular compartments are mentioned by Nisbet, viz.
those carried by the Macfarlanes of that Ilk and the Ogilvies of
Innerquharity. The former consists of a wavy {447} representation of Loch
Sloy, the gathering-place of the clan, which word is also inscribed on the
compartment as their _cri-de-guerre_ or slogan; while the latter is a
"green hill or rising terrace," on which are placed two serpents, "nowed,"
spouting fire, and the motto, "Terrena pericula sperno." For some of the
foregoing instances I am indebted to Seton's well-known "Law and Practice
of Heraldry in Scotland." {448}

CHAPTER XXVIII

MOTTOES

To the uninitiated, the subject of the motto of a family has a far greater
importance than is conceded to it by those who have spent any time in the
study of armory. Perhaps it may clear the ground if the rules presently in
force are first recited. It should be carefully observed that the status of
the motto is vastly different in England and in other countries. Except in
the cases of impersonal arms (and not always then), the motto is never
mentioned or alluded to in the terms of the patent in a grant of arms in
England; consequently they are not a part of the "estate" created by the
Letters Patent, though if it be desired a motto will always be painted
below the emblazonment in the margin of the patent. Briefly speaking, the
position in England with regard to personal armorial bearings is that
mottoes are _not hereditary_. No one is compelled to bear one, nor is any
authority needed for the adoption of a motto, the matter is left purely to
the personal pleasure of every individual; but if that person elects to use
a motto, the officers of arms are perfectly willing to paint any motto he
may choose upon his grant, and to add it to the record of his arms in their
books. There is no necessity expressed or implied to use a motto at all,
nor is the slightest control exercised over the selection or change of
mottoes, though, as would naturally be expected, the officers of arms would
decline to record to any private person any motto which might have been
appropriated to the sovereign or to any of the orders of knighthood. In the
same way no control is exercised over the position in which the motto is to
be carried or the manner in which it is to be displayed.

In Scotland, however, the matter is on an entirely different footing. The
motto is included within the terms of the patent, and is consequently made
the subject of grant. It therefore becomes inalienable and unchangeable
without a rematriculation, and a Scottish patent moreover always specifies
the position in which the motto is to be carried. This is usually "in an
escroll over the same" (_i.e._ over the crest), though occasionally it is
stated to be borne on "a compartment below the arms." The matter in Ireland
is not quite the same as in {449} either Scotland or England. Sometimes the
motto is expressed in the patent--in fact this is now the more usual
alternative--but the rule is not universal, and to a certain extent the
English permissiveness is recognised. Possibly the subject can be summed up
in the remark that if any motto has been granted or is recorded with a
particular coat of arms in Ireland, it is expected that that shall be the
motto to be made use of therewith.

As a general practice the use of mottoes in England did not become general
until the eighteenth century--in fact there are very few, if any, grants of
an earlier date on which a motto appears. The majority, well on towards the
latter part of the eighteenth century, had no motto added, and many patents
are still issued without such an addition. With rare exceptions, no mottoes
are to be met with in the Visitation books, and it does not appear that at
the time of the Visitations the motto was considered to be essentially a
part of the armorial bearings. The one or two exceptions which I have met
with where mottoes are to be found on Visitation pedigrees are in every
case the arms of a peer. There are at least two such in the Yorkshire
Visitation of 1587, and probably it may be taken for granted that the
majority of peers at that period had begun to make use of these additions
to their arms. Unfortunately we have no exact means of deciding the point,
because peers were not compelled to attend a Visitation, and there are but
few cases in which the arms or pedigree of a peer figure in the Visitation
books. In isolated cases the use of a motto can, however, be traced back to
an even earlier period. There are several instances to be met with upon the
early Garter plates.

Many writers have traced the origin of mottoes to the "slogan" or war-cry
of battle, and there is no doubt whatever that instances can be found in
which an ancient war-cry has become a family motto. For example, one can
refer to the Fitzgerald "Crom-a-boo": other instances can be found amongst
some of the Highland families, but the fact that many well-known war-cries
of ancient days never became perpetuated as mottoes, and also the fact that
by far the greater number of mottoes, even at a much earlier period than
the present day, cannot by any possibility have ever been used for or have
originated with the purposes of battle-cries, inclines me to believe that
such a suggested origin for the motto in general is without adequate
foundation. There can be little if any connection between the war-cry as
such and the motto as such. The real origin would appear to be more
correctly traced back to the badge. As will be found explained elsewhere,
the badge was some simple device used for personal and household purposes
and seldom for war, except by persons who used the badge of the leader they
followed. No man wore his own badge {450} in battle. It generally partook
of the nature of what ancient writers would term "a quaint conceit," and
much ingenuity seems to have been expended in devising badges and mottoes
which should at the same time be distinctive and should equally be or
convey an index or suggestion of the name and family of the owner. Many of
these badges are found in conjunction with words, mottoes, and phrases, and
as the distinction between the badge in general and the crest in general
slowly became less apparent, they eventually in practice became
interchangeable devices, if the same device did not happen to be used for
both purposes. Consequently the motto from the badge became attached to the
crest, and was thence transferred to its present connection with the coat
of arms. Just as at the present time a man may and often does adopt a maxim
upon which he will model his life, some pithy proverb, or some trite
observation, without any question or reference to armorial bearings--so, in
the old days, when learning was less diffuse and when proverbs and sayings
had a wider acceptance and vogue than at present, did many families and
many men adopt for their use some form of words. We find these words carved
on furniture, set up on a cornice, cut in stone, and embroidered upon
standards and banners, and it is to this custom that we should look for the
beginning of the use of mottoes. But because such words were afterwards in
later generations given an armorial status, it is not justifiable to
presume such status for them from their beginnings. The fact that a man put
his badges on the standard that he carried into battle, and with his badges
placed the mottoes that thereto belonged, has led many people mistakenly to
believe that these mottoes were _designed_ for war-cries and for use in
battle. That was not the case. In fact it seems more likely that the bulk
of the standards recorded in the books of the heralds which show a motto
were never carried in battle.

With regard to the mottoes in use at the moment, some of course can be
traced to a remote period, and many of the later ones have interesting
legends connected therewith. Of mottoes of this character may be instanced
the "Jour de ma vie" of West, which was formerly the motto of the La Warr
family, adopted to commemorate the capture of the King of France at the
battle of Poictiers. There are many other mottoes of this character,
amongst which may be mentioned the "Grip fast" of the Leslies, the origin
of which is well known. But though many mottoes relate to incidents in the
remote past, true or mythical, the motto and the incident are seldom
contemporary. Nothing would be gained by a recital of a long list of
mottoes, but I cannot forbear from quoting certain curious examples which
by their very weirdness must excite curiosity as to their origin. A family
of Martin used the singular words, "He who looks at Martin's {451} ape,
Martin's ape shall look at him," whilst the Curzons use, "Let Curzon hold
what Curzon helde." The Cranston motto is still more grasping, being, "Thou
shalt want ere I want;" but probably the motto of the Dakyns is the most
mysterious of all, "Strike Dakyns, the devil's in the hempe." The motto of
Corbet, "Deus pascit corvos," evidently alludes to the raven or ravens
(corby crows) upon the shield. The mottoes of Trafford, "Now thus," and
"Gripe griffin, hold fast;" the curious Pilkington motto, "Pilkington
Pailedown, the master mows the meadows;" and the "Serva jugum" of Hay have
been the foundation of many legends. The "Fuimus" of the Bruce family is a
pathetic allusion to the fact that they were once kings, but the majority
of ancient mottoes partake rather of the nature of a pun upon the name,
which fact is but an additional argument towards the supposition that the
motto has more relation to the badge than to any other part of the armorial
bearings. Of mottoes which have a punning character may be mentioned "Mon
Dieu est ma roche," which is the motto of Roche, Lord Fermoy; "Cavendo
tutus," which is the motto of Cavendish; "Forte scutum salus ducum," which
is the motto of Fortescue; "Set on," which is the motto of Seton; "Da fydd"
of Davies, and "Ver non semper viret," the well-known pun of the Vernons.
Another is the apocryphal "Quid rides" which Theodore Hook suggested for
the wealthy and retired tobacconist. This punning character has of late
obtained much favour, and wherever a name lends itself to a pun the effort
seems nowadays to be made that the motto shall be of this nature. Perhaps
the best pun which exists is to be found in the motto of the Barnard
family, who, with arms "Argent, a bear rampant sable, muzzled or," and
crest "A demi-bear as in the arms," use for the motto, "Bear and Forbear,"
or in Latin, as it is sometimes used, "Fer et perfer." Others that may be
alluded to are the "What I win I keep" of Winlaw; the "Libertas" of
Liberty; the "Ubi crux ibi lux" of Sir William Crookes; the "Bear thee
well" of Bardwell; the "Gare le pied fort" of Bedford; the "Gare la bête"
of Garbett; and the "Cave Deus videt" of Cave. Other mottoes--and they are
a large proportion--are of some saintly and religious tendency. However
desirable and acceptable they may be, and however accurately they may apply
to the first possessor, they sometimes are sadly inappropriate to later and
more degenerate successors.

In Germany, a distinction appears to be drawn between their "Wahlsprüche"
(_i.e._ those which are merely dictated by personal choice) and the
"armorial mottoes" which remained constantly and heritably attached to the
armorial bearings, such as the "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") of Prussia
and the "Nihil sine Deus" of Hohenzollern. {452}

The Initial or Riddle Mottoes appear to be peculiar to Germany. Well-known
examples of these curiosities are the "W. G. W." (_i.e._ "Wie Gott
will"--"As God wills"), or "W. D. W." (_i.e._ "Wie du willst"--"As thou
wilt"), which are both frequently to be met with. The strange but
well-known alphabet or vowel-motto "A. E. I. O. V." of the Emperor
Frederick III. has been variously translated, "Aquila Electa Juste Omnia
Vincit" ("The chosen eagle vanquishes all by right"), "Aller Ehren Ist
Oesterrich Voll" ("Austria is full of every honour"), or perhaps with more
likelihood, "Austria Est Imperare Orbe Universo" ("All the earth is subject
to Austria").

The _cri-de-guerre_, both as a heraldic fact and as an armorial term, is
peculiar, and exclusively so, to British and French heraldry. The national
_cri-de-guerre_ of France, "Montjoye Saint Denis," appeared above the
pavilion in the old Royal Arms of France, and probably the English Royal
motto, "Dieu et mon Droit," is correctly traced to a similar origin. A
distinction is still made in modern heraldry between the _cri-de-guerre_
and the motto, inasmuch as it is considered that the former should always
of necessity surmount the crest. This is very generally adhered to in
Scotland in the cases where both a motto and a _cri-de-guerre_ (or, as it
is frequently termed in that country, a "slogan") exist, the motto,
contrary to the usual Scottish practice, being then placed below the
shield. It is to be hoped that a general knowledge of this fact will not,
however, result in the description of every motto found above a crest as a
_cri-de-guerre_, and certainly the concentrated piety now so much in favour
in England for the purposes of a motto can be quite fitly left below the
shield.

Artists do not look kindly on the motto for decorative purposes. It has
been usually depicted in heraldic emblazonment in black letters upon a
white scroll, tinted and shaded with pink, but with the present revival of
heraldic art, it has become more general to paint the motto ribbon in
conformity with the colour of the field, the letters being often shown
thereon in gold. The colour and shape of the motto ribbon, however, are
governed by no heraldic laws, and except in Scottish examples should be
left, as they are purely unimportant accessories of the achievement, wholly
at the discretion of the artist. {453}

CHAPTER XXIX

BADGES

The exact status of the badge in this country, to which it is peculiar, has
been very much misunderstood. This is probably due to the fact that the
evolution of the badge was gradual, and that its importance increased
unconsciously. Badges do not formerly appear to have ever been made the
subjects of grants, and the instances which can be referred to showing
their control, or attempted control, by the Crown in past times are _very
rare indeed_. As a matter of fact, the Crown seems to have perhaps
purposely ignored them. They are not, as we know them, found in the
earliest times of heraldry, unless we are to presume their existence from
early seals, many of which show isolated charges taken from the arms; for
if in the cases where such charges appear upon the seals we are to accept
those seals as proofs of the contemporary existence of those devices as
heraldic badges, we should often be led into strange conclusions.

There is no doubt that these isolated devices which are met with were not
only a part of the arms, but in many cases the _origin_ of the arms.
Devices possessing a more or less personal and possessive character occur
in many cases before record of the arms they later developed into can be
traced. This will be noticed in relation to the arms of Swinton, to which
reference is made elsewhere. If these are badges, then badges go back to an
earlier date than arms. Such devices occur many centuries before such a
thing as a shield of arms existed.

The _Heraldic Badge, as we know it_, came into general use about the reign
of Edward III., that is, the heraldic badge as a separate matter having a
distinct existence in addition to concurrent arms, and having at the same
time a distinctly heraldic character. But long before that date, badges are
found with an allied reference to a particular person, which very possibly
are rightly included in any enumeration of badges. Of such a character is
the badge of the broom plant, which is found upon the tomb of Geoffrey,
Count of Anjou, from which badge the name of the Plantagenet dynasty
originated (Plantagenet, by the way, was never a personal surname, but was
the name of the dynasty). {454}

It is doubtful, however, if at that early period there existed much if
indeed any opportunity for the use of heraldic badges. At the same time, as
far back as the reign of Richard I.--and some writers would take examples
of a still more remote period--these badges must have been occasionally
depicted upon banners, for Richard I. appears to have had a dragon upon one
of his banners.

These banner decorations, which at a later date have been often accepted as
badges, can hardly be quite properly so described, for there are many cases
where no other proof of usage can be found, and there is no doubt that many
such are instances of no more than banners prepared for specific purposes;
and the record of such and such a banner cannot necessarily carry proof
that the owner of the banner claimed or used the objects depicted thereupon
as personal badges. If they are to be so included some individuals must
have revelled in a multitude of badges.

But the difficulty in deciding the point very greatly depends upon the
definition of the badge; and if we are to take the definition according to
the manner of acceptance and usage at the period when the use of badges was
greatest, then many of the earliest cannot be taken as coming within the
limits.

In later Plantagenet days, badges were of considerable importance, and
certain characteristics are plainly marked. They were never worn by the
owner--in the sense in which he carried his shield, or bore his crest; they
were his sign-mark indicative of ownership; they were stamped upon his
belongings in the same way in which Government property is marked with the
broad arrow, and they were worn by his servants. They were worn not only by
his retainers, but very probably were also worn more or less temporarily by
adherents of his party if he were big enough to lead a party in the State.
At all times badges had very extensive decorative use.

There was never any fixed form for the badge; there was never any fixed
manner of usage. I can find no fixed laws of inheritance, no common method
of assumption. In fact the use of a badge, in the days when everybody who
was anybody possessed arms, was quite subsidiary to the arms, and very much
akin to the manner in which nowadays monograms are made use of. At the same
time care must be taken to distinguish the "badge" from the "rebus," and
also from the temporary devices which we read about as having been so often
adopted for the purpose of the tournament when the combatant desired his
identity to be concealed. Modern novelists and poets give us plenty of
illustrations of the latter kind, but proof of the fact even that they were
ever adopted in that form is by no means easy to find, though their
professedly temporary nature of course militates against {455} the
likelihood of contemporary _record_. The rebus had never an heraldic
status, and it had seldom more than a temporary existence. A fanciful
device adopted (we hear of many such instances) for the temporary purpose
of a tournament could generally be so classed, but the rebus proper has
some device, usually a pictorial rendering of the name of the person for
whom it stood. In such a category would be included printers' and masons'
marks, but probably the definition of Dr. Johnson of the word rebus, as a
word represented by a picture, is as good a definition and description as
can be given. The rebus in its nature is a different thing from a badge,
and may best be described as a pictorial signature, the most frequent
occasion for its use being in architectural surroundings, where it was
constantly introduced as a pun upon some name which it was desired to
perpetuate. The best-known and perhaps the most typical and characteristic
rebus is that of Islip, the builder of part of Westminster Abbey. Here the
pictured punning representation of his name had nothing to do with his
armorial bearings or personal badge; but the great difficulty, in dealing
with both badges and rebuses, is the difficulty of knowing which is which,
for very frequently the same or a similar device was used for both
purposes. Parker, in his glossary of heraldic terms, gives several typical
examples of rebuses which very aptly illustrate their status and meaning.
At Lincoln College at Oxford, and on other buildings connected with Thomas
Beckynton, Bishop of Bath and Wells, will be found carved the rebus of a
beacon issuing from a tun. This is found in conjunction with the letter T
for his Christian name, Thomas. Now this design was not his coat of arms,
and was not his crest, nor was it his badge. Another rebus which is found
at Canterbury shows an ox and the letters N, E, as the rebus of John Oxney.
A rebus which indicates Thomas Conyston, Abbot of Cirencester, which can be
found in Gloucester Cathedral, is a comb and a tun, and the printer's mark
of Richard Grifton, which is a good example of a rebus and its use, was a
tree, or graft, growing on a tun. In none of these cases are the designs
mentioned on any part of the arms, crest, or badge of the persons
mentioned. Rebuses of this character abound on all our ancient buildings,
and their use has lately come very prominently into favour in connection
with the many allusive bookplates, the design of which originates in some
play upon the name. The words "device," "ensign," and "cognisance" have no
definite heraldic meaning, and are used impartially to apply to the crest,
the badge, and sometimes to the arms upon the shield, so that they may be
eliminated from consideration. There remains therefore the crest and the
badge between which to draw a definite line of distinction. The real
difference lay in the method of use, though there is usually a difference
of form, {456} recognisable by an expert, but difficult to put into words.
The crest was the ornament upon the helmet, seldom if ever actually worn,
and never used except by the person to whom it belonged. The badge, on the
other hand, was never placed upon the helmet, but was worn by the servants
and retainers, and was used right and left on the belongings of the owner
as a sign of his ownership. So great and extensive at one period was the
use of these badges, that they were far more generally employed than either
arms or crest, and whilst the knowledge of a man's badge or badges would be
everyday knowledge and common repute throughout the kingdom, few people
would know that man's crest, fewer still would ever have seen it worn.

It is merely an exaggeration of the difficulty that we are always in
uncertainty whether any given device was merely a piece of decoration
borrowed from the arms or crest, or whether it had continued usage as a
badge. In the same way many families who had never used crests, but who had
used badges, took the opportunity of the Visitations to record their badges
as crests. A notable example of the subsequent record of a badge as a crest
is met with in the Stourton family. Their crest, originally a buck's head,
but after the marriage with the heiress of Le Moigne, a demi-monk, can be
readily substantiated, as can their badge of the drag or sledge. At one of
the Visitations, however, a cadet of the Stourton family recorded the
sledge as a crest. Uncertainty also arises from the lack of precision in
the diction employed at all periods, the words badge, device, and crest
having so often been used interchangeably.

Another difficulty which is met with in regard to badges is that, with the
exception of the extensive records of the Royal badges and some other more
or less informal lists of badges of the principal personages at different
periods, badges were never a subject of official record, and whilst it is
difficult to determine the initial point as to whether any particular
device is a badge or not, the difficulty of deducing rules concerning
badges becomes practically impossible, and after most careful consideration
I have come to the conclusion that there were never any hard and fast rules
relating to badges, that they were originally and were allowed to remain
matters of personal fancy, and that although well-known cases can be found
where the same badge has been used generation after generation, those cases
may perhaps be the exception rather than the rule. Badges should be
considered and accepted in the general run as not being matters of
permanence, and as of little importance except during the time from about
the reign of Edward III. to about the reign of Henry VIII. Their principal
use upon the clothes of the retainers came to an end by the creation of the
standing army, the beginning of which can be traced to the reign of Henry
VIII., and as badges never had any ceremonial use to perpetuate {457} their
status, their importance almost ceased altogether at that period except as
regards the Royal family.

Speaking broadly, regularised and _recorded_ heraldic control as a matter
of operative fact dates little if any further back than the end of the
reign of Henry VIII., consequently badges originally do not appear to have
been taken much cognisance of by the Heralds. Their actual use from that
period onwards rapidly declined, and hence the absence of record.

Though the use of badges has become very restricted, there are still one or
two occasions on which badges are used as badges, in the style formerly in
vogue. Perhaps the case which is most familiar is the broad arrow which is
used to mark Government stores. It is a curious commentary upon heraldic
officialdom and its ways that though this is the only badge which has
really any extensive use, it is not a Crown badge in any degree. Although
this origin has been disputed it is said to have originated in the fact
that one of the Sydney family, when Master of the Ordnance, to prevent
disputes as to the stores for which he was responsible, marked everything
with his private badge of the broad arrow, and this private badge has since
remained in constant use. One wonders at what date the officers of His
Majesty will observe that this has become one of His Majesty's recognised
badges, and will include it with the other Royal badges in the warrants in
which they are recited. Already more than two centuries have passed since
it first came into use, and either they should represent to the Government
that the pheon is not a Crown mark, and that some recognised Royal badge
should be used in its place, or else they should place its status upon a
definite footing.

Another instance of a badge used at the present day in the ancient manner
is the conjoined rose, thistle, and shamrock which is embroidered front and
back upon the tunics of the Beefeaters and the Yeomen of the Guard. The
crowned harps which are worn by the Royal Irish Constabulary are another
instance of the kind, but though a certain number of badges are recited in
the warrant each time any alteration or declaration of the Royal Arms
occurs, their use has now become very limited. Present badges are the
crowned rose for England, the crowned thistle for Scotland, and the crowned
trefoil and the crowned harp for Ireland; whilst for the Union there is the
conjoined rose, thistle, and shamrock under the crown, and the crowned
shield which carries the device of the Union Jack. The badge of Wales,
which has existed for long enough, is the uncrowned dragon upon a mount
vert, and the crowned cyphers, one within and one without the Garter, are
also depicted upon the warrant. These badges, which appear on the
Sovereign's warrant, are never assigned to any other member of the Royal
Family, of whom {458} the Prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in
the possession of officially assigned badges. The badge of the eldest son
of the Sovereign, as such, and not as Prince of Wales, is the plume of
three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet. Recently
an additional badge (on a mount vert, a dragon passant gules, charged on
the shoulder with a label of three points argent) has been assigned to His
Royal Highness. This action was taken with the desire to in some way
gratify the forcibly expressed wishes of Wales, and it is probable that,
the precedent having been set, it will be assigned to all those who may
bear the title of Prince of Wales in future.

The only instances I am personally aware of in which a real badge of
ancient origin is still worn by the servants are the cases of the state
liveries of the Earl of Yarborough, whose servants wear an embroidered
buckle, and of Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whose servants wear an
embroidered sledge. The family of Daubeney of Cote still bear the old
Daubeney badge of the pair of bat's wings; Lord Stafford still uses his
"Stafford knot." I believe the servants of Lord Braye still wear the badge
of the hemp-brake, and those of the Earl of Loudoun wear the Hastings
maunch; and doubtless there are a few other instances. When the old
families were becoming greatly reduced in number, and the nobility and the
upper classes were being recruited from families of later origin, the
wearing of badges, like so much else connected with heraldry, became lax in
its practice.

The servants of all the great nobles in ancient days appear to have worn
the badges of their masters in a manner similar to the use of the royal
badge by the Yeomen of the Guard, although sometimes the badge was
embroidered upon the sleeve; and the wearing of the badge by the retainers
is the chief and principal use to which badges were anciently put. Nisbet
alludes on this point to a paragraph from the Act for the Order of the
Riding of Parliament in 1681, which says that "the noblemen's lacqueys may
have over their liveries velvet coats with their badges, _i.e._ their
crests and mottoes done on plate, or embroidered on the back and breast
conform to ancient custom." A curious survival of these plates is to be
found in the large silver plaques worn by so many bank messengers. Badges
appear, however, to have been frequently depicted semé upon the lambrequins
of armorial achievements, as will be seen from many of the old Garter
plates; but here, again, it is not always easy to distinguish between
definite badges and artistic decoration, nor between actual badges in use
and mere appropriately selected charges from the shield.

The water-bougets of Lord Berners, the knot of Lord Stafford, popularly
known as "the Stafford knot"; the Harington fret; the ragged staff or the
bear and the ragged staff of Lord Warwick (this {459} being really a
conjunction of two separate devices); the Rose of England, the Thistle of
Scotland, and the sledge of Stourton, the hemp-brake of Lord Braye wherever
met with are readily recognised as badges, but there are many badges which
it is difficult to distinguish from crests, and even some which in all
respects would appear to be more correctly regarded as coats of arms.

It is a point worthy of consideration whether or not a badge needs a
background; here, again, it is a matter most difficult to determine, but it
is singular that in any matter of _record_ the badge is almost invariably
depicted upon a background, either of a standard or a mantling, or upon the
"field" of a roundel, and it may well be that their use in such
circumstances as the two cases first mentioned may have only been
considered correct when the colour of the mantling or the standard happened
to be the right colour for the background of the badge.

Badges are most usually met with in stained glass upon roundels of some
colour or colours, and though one would hesitate to assert it as an actual
fact, there are many instances which would lead one to suppose that the
background of a badge was usually the livery colour or colours of its then
owner, or of the family from which it was originally inherited. Certain is
it that there are very few contemporary instances of badges which, when
emblazoned, are not upon the known livery colours; and if this fact be
accepted, then one is perhaps justified in assuming all to be livery
colours, and we get at once a ready explanation on several points which
have long puzzled antiquaries. The name of Edward "the Black Prince" has
often been a matter of discussion, and the children's history books tell us
that the nickname originated from the colour of his armour. This may be
true enough, but as most armour would be black when it was unpolished, and
as most armour was either polished or dull, the probabilities are not very
greatly in its favour. Though there can be found instances, it was not a
usual custom for any one to paint his armour red or green. Even if the
armour of the prince were enamelled black it would be so usually hidden by
his surcoat that he is hardly likely to have been nicknamed from it. It
seems to me far more probable that black was the livery colour of the Black
Prince, and that his own retainers and followers wore the livery of black.
If that were the case, one understands at once how he would obtain the
nickname. The nickname is doubtless contemporary. A curious confirmation of
my supposition is met with in the fact that his shield for peace was:
"Sable, three ostrich feathers two and one, the quill of each passing
through a scroll argent." There we get the undoubted badge of the ostrich
feather, which was originally borne singly, depicted upon his livery
colour--black. {460}

The badges represented in Prince Arthur's Book in the College of Arms (an
important source of our knowledge upon the subject) are all upon
backgrounds; and the curious divisions of the colours on the backgrounds
would seem to show that each badge had its own background, several badges
being only met with upon the same ground when that happens to be the true
background belonging to them. But in attempting to deduce rules, it should
be remembered that in all and every armorial matter there was greater
laxity of rule at the period of the actual use of arms as a reality of life
than it was possible to permit when the multiplication of arms as paper
insignia made regulation necessary and more restrictive; so that an
occasional variation from any deduction need not necessarily vitiate the
conclusion, even in a matter exclusively relating to the shield. How much
more, then, must we remain in doubt when dealing with badges which appear
to have been so largely a matter of personal caprice.

It is a striking comment that of all the badges presently to be referred to
of the Stafford family, each single one is depicted upon a background. It
is a noticeable fact that of the eighteen "badges" exemplified as belonging
to the family of Stafford, nine are upon parti-coloured fields. This is not
an unreasonable proportion if the fields are considered to be the livery
colours of the families from whom the badges were originally derived, but
it is altogether out of proportion to the number of shields in any roll of
arms which would have the field party per pale, or party in any other form
of division. With the exception of the second badge, which is on a striped
background of green and white, all the party backgrounds are party per
pale, which was the most usual way of depicting a livery in the few records
which have come down to us of the heraldic use of livery colours, and of
the eighteen badges, no less than eight are upon a parti-coloured field of
which the dexter is sable and the sinister gules. Scarlet and black are
known to have been the livery colours of Edward Stafford, Duke of
Buckingham, who was beheaded in 1521. The arms of the town of Buckingham
are on a field per pale sable and gules.

With regard to the descent of badges and the laws which govern their
descent still less is known. The answer to the question, "How did badges
descend?" is simple: "Nobody knows." One can only hazard opinions more or
less pious, of more or less value. It is distinctly a point upon which it
is risky to be dogmatic, and we must wait for the development which will
follow the recent revival of the granting of standards. As cases occur for
decision precedents will be found and disclosed. Whilst the secrecy of the
records of the College of Arms is so jealously preserved it is impossible
to speak definitely at present, for an exact and comprehensive knowledge of
exact and {461} authoritative instances of fact is necessary before a
decision can be definitely put forward. Unless some officer of arms will
carefully collate the information which can be gleaned from the records in
the College of Arms which are relevant to the subject, it does not seem
likely that our knowledge will advance greatly.

The grant of supporters to the Earl of Stafford, as under, is worthy of
attention.

"To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, John Anstis Esq^r
Garter principal King of Arms, sends greeting, Whereas his late Majesty
King James the Second by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, did create
Henry Stafford Howard to be Earl of Stafford, to have and hold the same to
him and the heirs males of his body; and for default thereof to John and
Francis his Brothers and the heirs males of their bodies respectively,
whereby the said Earldom is now legally vested in the right Hon^{ble}
William Stafford Howard Son and Heir of the said John; And in regard that
y^e said Henry late Earl of Stafford omitted to take any Grant of
Supporters, which the Peers of this Realm have an indisputable Right to use
and bear, the right Hon^{ble} Henry Bowes Howard Earl of Berkshire Deputy
(with the Royal Approbation) of his Grace Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk
Earl Marshall and Hereditary Marshall of England hath been pleased to
direct me to grant to the said right Hon^{ble} William Stafford Howard Earl
of Stafford the Supporters formerly granted to y^e late Viscount Stafford,
Grandfather to the said Earl; as also to order me to cause to be depicted
in the Margin of my said Grant y^e Arms of Thomas of Woodstock Duke of
Gloucester quartered with the Arms of the said Earl of Stafford, together
with the Badges of the said Noble Family of Stafford: Now these presents
Witness that according to the consent of the said Earl of Berkshire
signified under his Lordship's hand and seal I do by the Authority and
power annexed to my Office hereby grant and assign to y^e said Right
Honourable William Stafford Howard Earl of Stafford, the following
Supporters which were heretofore borne by the late Lord Viscount Stafford,
that is to say, on the Dexter side a Lion Argent, and on the Sinister Side
a Swan surgiant Argent Gorged with a Ducal Coronet per Pale Gules and sable
beaked and membered of the Second; to be used and borne at all times and
upon all occasions by the said Earl of Stafford and the heirs males of his
body, and such persons to whom the said Earldom shall descend according to
the Law and Practice of Arms without the let or interruption of any Person
or Persons whatsoever. And in pursuance of the Warrant of the said Earl of
Berkshire, The Arms of Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester, as the same
are on a Plate remaining in the Chapel of S^t George within y^e Castle of
Windsor, set up there for his Descendant the Duke of Buckingham {462} are
depicted in the margin, and quartered in such place and manner as the same
were formerly borne by the Staffords Dukes of Buckingham, together with
Eighteen badges belonging to the said most ancient and illustrious Family
of Stafford, as the same are represented in a Manuscript remaining in the
College of Arms (Fig. 674). In Witness whereof I the said Garter have
hereto subscribed my Name and affixed the Seal of my Office this First Day
of August Anno Domini 1720.

 "JOHN ANSTIS Garter
     "Principal King of Arms."

[Illustration: FIG. 674.--The Stafford Badges as exemplified in 1720 to
William Stafford Howard, Earl of Stafford.]

{463}

It may be of interest to call attention to the fact that in this
exemplification the Royal Arms are displayed before those of Stafford. On
the face of it, the document--as far as it relates to the badges--is no
more than a certificate or exemplification, in which case it is undoubted
evidence that badges descend to the heir-general as do quarterings; but
there is the possibility that the document is a re-grant in the nature of
an exemplification following a Royal Licence, or a re-grant to remove
uncertainty as to the attainder. And if the document--as far as its
relation to the badges goes--has any of the character of a grant, it can
have but little value as evidence of the descent of badges. It is
remarkable that it is absolutely silent as to the future destination of the
badges. The real fact is that the whole subject of the descent and
devolution of badges is shrouded in mystery. Each of the badges (Fig. 674)
is depicted within a circle adorned with a succession of Stafford knots, as
is shown in the one instance at the head. Five of these badges appear upon
a well-known portrait of Edward, Duke of Buckingham. The fact that some of
these _badges_ are really crests depicted upon wreaths goes far as an
authority for the use of a crest upon livery buttons for the purposes of a
badge.

In ancient days all records seemed to point to the fact that badges were
personal, and that though they were worn by the retainers, they were the
property of _the head_ of the family, rather than (as the arms) of the
whole family, and though the information available is meagre to the last
degree, it would appear probable that in all cases where their use by other
members of the family than the head of the house can be proved, the
likelihood is that the cadets would render feudal service and would wear
the badge as retainers of the man whose standard they followed into battle,
so that we should expect to find the badge following the same descent as
the peerage, together with the lands and liabilities which accompanied it.
This undoubtedly makes for the inheritance of a badge upon the same line of
descent as a barony by writ, and such a method of inheritance accounts for
the known descent of most of the badges heraldically familiar to us.
Probably we shall be right in so accepting it as the ancient rule of
inheritance. But, on the other hand, a careful examination of the "Book of
Standards," now preserved in the College of Arms, provides several examples
charged with marks of cadency. But here again one is in ignorance whether
this is an admission of inheritance by cadets, or whether the cases should
be considered as grants of differenced versions to cadets. This then gives
us the badge, the property in and of which would descend to the
heir-general (and perhaps also to cadets), whilst it would be used (if
there were no inherited right) in token of allegiance or service, actual,
quasi-actual, {464} or sentimental, by the cadets of the house and their
servants; for whilst the use of the cockade is a survival of the right to
be waited on and served by a soldier servant, the use of a badge by a cadet
may be a survival and reminder of the day when (until they married
heiresses and continued or founded other families) the cadets of a house
owed and gave military service to the head of their own family, and in
return were supported by him.

From the wording of the recent grants of badges I believe the intention,
however, is that the badge is to descend of right to all of those people on
whom a right to it would devolve if it were a quartering.

The use of badges having been so limited, the absence of rule and
regulation leaves it very much a matter of personal taste how badges, where
they exist, shall be heraldically depicted, and perhaps it is better to
leave their manner of display to artistic requirements. The most usual
place, when depicted in conjunction with an achievement, is on either side
of the crest, and they may well be placed in that position. Where they
exist, however, they ought undoubtedly to be continued in use upon the
liveries of the servants, and the present practice is for them to be placed
on the livery buttons, and embroidered upon the epaulettes or on the
sleeves of state liveries. Undoubtedly the former practice of placing the
badge upon the servants' livery is the precursor of the present vogue of
placing crests upon livery buttons, and many heraldic writers complain of
the impropriety of placing the crest in such a position. I am not sure that
I myself may not have been guilty in this way; but when one bears in mind
the number of cases in which the badge and the crest are identical, and
when, as in the above instance, devices which are undoubtedly crests are
exemplified as and termed badges, even as such being represented upon
wreaths, and even in that form granted upon standards, whilst in other
cases the action has been the reverse, it leaves one under the necessity of
being careful in making definite assertions.

Having dealt with the laws (if there ever were any) and the practice
concerning the use and display of badges in former days, it will be of
interest to notice some of those which were anciently in use.

I have already referred to the badge of the ostrich feathers, now borne
exclusively by the heir-apparent to the throne. The old legend that the
Black Prince won the badge at the battle of Crecy by the capture of John,
King of Bohemia, together with the motto "Ich dien," has been long since
exploded. Sir Harris Nicolas brought to notice the fact that among certain
pieces of plate belonging to Queen Philippa of Hainault was a large
silver-gilt dish enamelled with a black escutcheon with ostrich feathers,
"vuo scuch nigro cum pennis de {465} ostrich," and upon the strength of
that, suggested that the ostrich feather was probably originally a badge of
the Counts of Hainault derived from the County of Ostrevaus, a title which
was held by their eldest sons. The suggestion in itself seems probable
enough and may be correct, but it would not account for the use of the
ostrich feathers by the Mowbray family, who did not descend from the
marriage of Edward III. and Philippa of Hainault. Contemporary proof of the
use of badges is often difficult to find. The Mowbrays had many badges, and
certainly do not appear to have made any very extensive use of the ostrich
feathers. But there seems to be very definite authority for the existence
of the badge. There is in one of the records of the College of Arms (R. 22,
67), which is itself a copy of another record, the following statement:--

"The discent of Mowbray written at length in lattin from the Abby booke of
newborough wherein Rich 2 gaue to Thomas Duke of norff. & Erle Marshall the
armes of Saint Edward Confessor in theis words:

"Et dedit eidem Thome ad pertandum in sigillo et vexillo quo arma S^{ti}
Edwardi. Idcirco arma bipartata portavit scil' 't Sci Edwardi et domini
marcialis angliæ cum duabus pennis strutionis erectis et super crestam
leonem et duo parva scuta cum leonibus et utraq' parto predictorum
armorum."

[Illustration: FIG. 675.--The arms granted by King Richard II. to Thomas de
Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and showing the ostrich feather badges.]

Accompanying this is a rough-tricked sketch of the arms upon which the
illustration (Fig. 675) has been based. Below this extract in the College
Records is written in another hand: "I find this then {466} in ye chancell
window of Effingham by Bungay in the top of the cot window with Mowbraye &
Segrave on the side in glass there."

Who the writer was I am unaware. He appends a further sketch to his note,
which slightly differs. No helmet or crest is shown, and the central shield
has only the arms of Brotherton. The feathers which flank it are both
enfiled below the shield by one coronet. Of the smaller shields at the
side, the dexter bears the arms of Mowbray and the sinister those of
Segrave. Possibly the Mowbrays, as recognised members of the Royal Family,
bore the badge by subsequent grant and authorisation and not on the simple
basis of inheritance.

An ostrich feather piercing a scroll was certainly the favourite badge of
the Black Prince and so appears on several of his seals, and triplicated it
occurs on his "shield of peace" (Fig. 478), which, set up under the
instructions in his will, still remains on his monument in Canterbury
Cathedral. The arms of Sir Roger de Clarendon, the illegitimate son of the
Black Prince, were derived from this "shield for peace," which I take it
was not really a coat of arms at all, but merely the badge of the Prince
depicted upon his livery colour, and which might equally have been
displayed upon a roundle. In the form of a shield bearing three feathers
the badge occurs on the obverse of the second seal of Henry IV. in 1411. A
single ostrich feather with the motto "Ich dien" upon the scroll is to be
seen on the seal of Edward, Duke of York, who was killed at the battle of
Agincourt in 1415. Henry IV. as Duke of Lancaster placed on either side of
his escutcheon an ostrich feather with a garter or belt carrying the motto
"Sovereygne" _twined around_ the feather, John of Gaunt used the badge with
a chain laid along the quill, and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, used it with
a garter and buckle instead of the chain; whilst John Beaufort, Duke of
Somerset, placed an ostrich feather on each side of his shield, the quills
in his case being compony argent and azure, like the bordure round his
arms.

[Illustration: FIG. 676.--Seal of King James II. for the Duchy of
Lancaster.]

There is a note in Harl. MS. 304, folio 12, which, if it be strictly
accurate, is of some importance. It is to the effect that the "feather
silver with the pen gold is the King's, the ostrich feather pen and all
silver is the Prince's (_i.e._ the Prince of Wales), and the ostrich
feather gold the pen ermine is the Duke of Lancaster's." That statement
evidently relates to a time when the three were in existence
contemporaneously, _i.e._ before the accession of Henry IV. In the reign of
Richard II. there was no Prince of Wales. During the reign of Edward III.
from 1376 onwards, Richard, afterwards Richard II., was Prince of Wales,
and John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster (so cr. 1362). But John of Gaunt
used the feather in the form above stated, and to find a Duke of Lancaster
_before_ John of Gaunt we must go {467} back to before 1360, when we have
Edward III. as King, the Black Prince as Prince, and Henry of Lancaster
(father-in-law of John of Gaunt) as Duke of Lancaster. He derived from
Henry III., and like the Mowbrays had no blood descent from Philippa of
Hainault. A curious confirmation of my suggestion that black was the livery
colour of the Black Prince is found in the fact that there was in a window
in St. Dunstan's Church, London, within a wreath of roses a roundle per
pale sanguine and azure (these being unquestionably livery colours), a
plume of ostrich feathers argent, quilled or, enfiled by a scroll bearing
the words "Ich dien." Above was the Prince's coronet and the letters E. &
P., one on each side of the plume. This was intended for Edward VI.,
doubtless being erected in the reign of Henry VIII. The badge in the form
in which we know it, _i.e._ enfiled by the princely coronet, dates from
about the beginning of the Stuart dynasty, since when it appears to have
been exclusively reserved for the eldest son and heir-apparent to the
throne. At the same time the right to the display of the badge would appear
to have been reserved by the Sovereign, and Woodward remarks:--

"On the Privy Seals of our Sovereigns the ostrich feather is still employed
as a badge. The shield of arms is usually placed between two lions sejant
guardant addorsed, each holding the feather. On the Privy Seal of Henry
VIII. the feathers are used without the lions, and this was the case on the
majority of the seals of the Duchy of Lancaster. On the reverse of the
present seal of the Duchy the feathers appear to be ermine."

[Illustration: FIG. 677.--Badge of King Henry II.]

[Illustration: FIG. 678.--Badge of Edward IV.]

Fig. 676 shows the seal of James II. for the Duchy of Lancaster. The seal
of the Lancashire County Council shows a shield supported by two talbots
sejant addorsed, each supporting in the exterior paw an ostrich feather
semé-de-lis. It is possible that the talbots may be intended for lions and
the fleurs-de-lis for ermine spots. The silver swan, one of the badges of
King Henry V., was used also by Henry IV. It was derived from the De
Bohuns, Mary de Bohun being the wife of Henry IV. From the De Bohuns it has
been traced to the Mandevilles, Earls of Essex, who may have adopted it to
typify their descent from Adam Fitz Swanne, _temp._ Conquest. Fig. 33 on
the same plate is the white hart of Richard II. Although some have traced
this badge from the white hind used as a badge by Joan, the Fair Maid of
Kent, the mother of Richard II., it is probably a device punning upon his
name, "Rich-hart." Richard II. was not the heir of his mother. The heir was
his half-brother, Thomas Holand, Earl of Kent, who _did_ use the badge of
the hind, and perhaps the real truth is that the Earl of Kent having the
better claim to the hind, Richard was under the necessity of making an
alteration which the obvious pun upon his {468} name suggested. There is no
doubt that the crest of Ireland originated therefrom. The stag in this case
was undoubtedly "lodged" in the earliest versions, and I have been much
interested in tracing the steps by which the springing attitude has
developed owing to the copying of badly drawn examples.

Amongst the many Royal and other badges in this country there are some of
considerable interest. Fig. 677 represents the famous badge of the
"broom-cod" or "planta genista," from which the name of the dynasty was
derived. It appears to have been first used by King Henry II., though it
figures in the decoration of the tomb of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou.
"Peascod" Street in Windsor of course derives its name therefrom. The
well-known badges of the white and red roses of York and Lancaster have
been already referred to, and Fig. 678, the well-known device of the
"rose-en-soliel" used by King Edward IV., was really a combination of two
distinct badges, viz. "the blazing sun of York" and the "white rose of
York." The rose again appears in 679, here dimidiated with the pomegranate
of Catharine of Aragon. This is taken from the famous Tournament Roll (now
in the College of Arms), which relates to the Tournament, 13th and 14th of
February 1510, to celebrate the birth of Prince Henry.

[Illustration: FIG. 679.--Compound Badge of Henry VIII. and Catharine of
Aragon. (From the Westminster Tournament Roll.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 680.--Badge of Richard I.]

[Illustration: FIG. 681.--Two badges of Henry VII., viz. the "sun-burst"
and the crowned portcullis.]

Richard I., John, and Henry III. are all said to have used the device of
the crescent and star (Fig. 680). Henry VII. is best known by his two
badges of the crowned portcullis and the "sun-burst" (Fig. 681). The
suggested origin of the former, that it was a pun on the name Tudor (_i.e._
two-door) is confirmed by the motto "Altera securitas" which was used with
it, but at the same time is rather vitiated by the fact that it was also
used by the Beauforts, who had {469} no Tudor descent. Save a very
tentative remark hazarded by Woodward, no explanation has as yet been
suggested for the sun-burst. My own strong conviction, based on the fact
that this particular badge was principally used by Henry VII., who was
always known as Henry of Windsor, is that it is nothing more than an
attempt to pictorially represent the name "Windsor" by depicting "winds" of
"or." The badge is also attributed to Edward III., and he, like Henry VII.,
made his principal residence at Windsor. Edward IV. also used the white
lion of March (whence is derived the shield of Ludlow: "Azure, a lion
couchant guardant, between three roses argent," Ludlow being one of the
fortified towns in the Welsh Marches), and the black bull which, though
often termed "of Clarence," is generally associated with the Duchy of
Cornwall. Richard III., as Duke of Gloucester, used a white boar.

The Earl of Northumberland used a silver crescent; the Earl of Douglas, a
red hart; the Earl of Pembroke, a golden pack-horse with collar and traces;
Lord Hastings bore as badge a black bull's head erased, gorged with a
coronet; Lord Stanley, a golden griffin's leg, erased; Lord Howard, a white
lion charged on the shoulder with a blue crescent; Sir Richard Dunstable
adopted a white cock as a badge; Sir John Savage, a silver unicorn's head
erased; Sir Simon Montford, a golden lily; Sir William Gresham, a green
grasshopper.

[Illustration: FIG. 682.--Badge of the Duke of Suffolk.]

[Illustration: FIG. 683.--Badge of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk.]

[Illustration: FIG. 684.--Stafford Knot.]

[Illustration: FIG. 685.--Wake or Ormonde Knot.]

[Illustration: FIG. 686.--Bourchier Knot.]

[Illustration: FIG. 687.--Heneage Knot.]

Two curious badges are to be seen in Figs. 682 and 683. The former is an
ape's clog argent, chained or, and was used by William de la Pole, Duke of
Suffolk (d. 1450). Fig. 683, "a salet silver" (MS. Coll. of Arms, 2nd M.
16), is the badge of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1524). Various
families used knots of different design, of which the best known is the
Stafford knot (Fig. 684). The wholesale and improper appropriation of this
badge with a territorial application has unfortunately caused it to be very
generally referred to as a "Staffordshire" knot, and that it was the
personal badge of the Lords Stafford is too often overlooked. Other badge
knots are the Wake or Ormonde knot (Fig. 685), the Bourchier knot (Fig.
686), and the Heneage knot (Fig. 687).

{470}

The personal badges of the members of the Royal Family continued in use
until the reign of Queen Anne, but from that time forward the Royal badges
obtained a territorial character; the rose of England, the thistle of
Scotland, and the shamrock of Ireland. To these popular consent has added
the lotus-flower for India, the maple for Canada, and in a lesser degree
the wattle or mimosa for Australia; but at present these lack any official
confirmation. The two first named, nevertheless, figured on the Coronation
Invitation Cards. {471}

CHAPTER XXX

HERALDIC FLAGS, BANNERS, AND STANDARDS

When it comes to the display of flags, the British-born individual usually
makes a hash of the whole business, and flies either the Sovereign's
personal coat of arms, which really should only be made use of over a
residence of the Sovereign when the Sovereign is actually there, or flown
at sea when the Sovereign is on board; or else he uses the national flag,
colloquially termed the "Union Jack," which, strictly speaking, and as a
matter of law, ought never to be made use of on land except over the
residence of the Sovereign in his absence, or on a fortress or other
Government building. But recently an official answer has been given in
Parliament, declaring what is presumably the pleasure of His Majesty to the
effect that the Union Jack is the National Flag, and may be flown as such
on land by any British subject. If this is the intention of the Crown, it
is a pity that this permission has not been embodied in a Royal warrant.

The banner of St. George, which is a white flag with a plain red cross of
St. George throughout, is now appropriated to the Order of the Garter, of
which St. George is the patron saint, though I am by no means inclined to
assert that it would be incorrect to make use of it upon a church which
happened to be specifically placed under the patronage of St. George.

The white ensign, which is a white flag bearing the cross of St. George and
in the upper quarter next to the staff a reproduction of the Union device,
belongs to the Royal Navy, and certain privileged individuals to whom the
right has been given by a specific warrant. The blue ensign, which is a
plain blue flag with the Union device on a canton in the upper corner next
the staff, belongs to the Royal Naval Reserve; and the red ensign, which is
the same as the former, except that a red flag is substituted for the blue
one, belongs to the ships of the merchant service. These three flags have
been specifically called into being by specific warrants for certain
purposes which are stated in these warrants, and these purposes being
wholly connected with the sea, neither the blue, the red, nor the white
ensign ought to be hoisted on land by anybody. Of course there is no
penalty for doing so on {472} land, though very drastic penalties can be
enforced for misuse of these ensigns on the water, a step which is taken
frequently enough. For a private person to use any one of these three flags
on land for a private purpose, the only analogy which I can suggest to
bring home to people the absurdity of such action would be to instance a
private person for his own private pleasure adopting the exact uniform of
some regiment whenever he might feel inclined to go bathing in the sea. If
he were to do so, he would find under the recent Act that he had incurred
the penalty, which would be promptly enforced, for bringing His Majesty's
uniform into disrepute. It is much to be wished that the penalties exacted
for the wrongful display of these flags at sea should be extended to their
abuse on shore.

The development of the Union Jack and the warrants relating to it are dealt
with herein by the Rev. J. R. Crawford, M.A., in a subsequent chapter, and
I do not propose to further deal with the point, except to draw attention
to a proposal, which is very often mooted, that some change or addition to
the Union Jack should be made to typify the inclusion of the colonies.

But to begin with, what is the Union Jack? Probably most would be inclined
to answer, "The flag of the Empire." It is nothing of the kind. It is in a
way stretching the definition to describe it as the King's flag. Certainly
the design of interlaced crosses is a badge of the King's, but that badge
is of a later origin than the flag.

The flag itself is the fighting emblem of the Sovereign, which the
Sovereign has declared shall be used by his soldiers or sailors for
fighting purposes under certain specified circumstances. That it is used,
even officially, in all sorts of circumstances with which the King's
warrants are not concerned is beside the matter, for it is to the Royal
Warrants that one must refer for the theory of the thing.

Now let us go further back, and trace the "argent, a cross gules," the part
which is England's contribution to the Union Jack, which itself is a
combination of the "crosses" of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick.
The theory of one is the theory of the three, separately or conjoined.

"Argent, a cross gules" was never the coat of arms of England (except under
the Commonwealth, when its use for armorial purposes may certainly be
disregarded), and the reason it came to be regarded as the flag of England
is simply and solely because fighting was always done under the supposed
patronage of some saint, and England fought, _not_ under the arms of
England, but under the flag of St. George, the patron saint of England and
of the Order of the Garter. The battle-cry "St. George for Merrie England!"
is too well known to need more than the passing mention. Scotland fought
under St. Andrew; Ireland, by a similar analogy, had for its patron saint
St. Patrick (if {473} indeed there was a Cross of St. Patrick before one
was needed for the Union flag, which is a very doubtful point), and the
Union Jack was not the combination of three territorial flags, but the
combination of the recognised emblems of the three recognised saints, and
though England claimed the sovereignty of France, and for that reason
quartered the arms of France, no Englishman bothered about the patronage of
St. Denis, and the emblem of St. Denis was never flown in this country. The
fact that no change was ever made in the flag to typify Hanover, whilst
Hanover duly had its place upon the arms, proves that the flag was
recognised to be, and allowed to remain, the emblem of the three patron
saints under whose patronage the British fought, and not the badge of any
sovereignty or territorial area. If the colonies had already any saint of
their own under whose patronage they had fought in bygone days, or in whose
name they wished to fight in the future, there might be reason _for
including the emblem of that saint_ upon the fighting flag of the Empire;
but they have no recognised saintly patrons, and they may just as well
fight for our saints as choose others for themselves at so late a day; but
having a flag which is a _combination_ of the emblems of three saints, and
which contains nothing that is not a part of those emblems, to make any
addition heraldic or otherwise to it now would, in my opinion, be best
expressed by the following illustration. Imagine three soldiers in full and
complete uniform, one English, one Scottish, and one Irish, it being
desired to evolve a uniform that should be taken from all three for use by
a Union regiment. A tunic from one, trousers from another, and a helmet
from a third, might be blended into a very effective and harmonious
composite uniform. Following the analogy of putting a bordure, which is not
the emblem of a saint, round the recognised emblems of the three recognised
saints, and considering it to be in keeping because the bordure was
heraldic and the emblems heraldic, one might argue, that because a uniform
was clothing as was also a ballet-dancer's skirt, therefore a
ballet-dancer's skirt outside the whole would be in keeping with the rest
of the uniform. For myself I should dislike any addition to the Union
device, as much as we should deride the donning of tulle skirts outside
their tunics and trousers by the brigade of Guards.

The flag which should float from a church tower should have no more on it
than the recognised ecclesiastical emblems of the saint to whom it is
dedicated: the keys of St. Peter, the wheel of St. Catherine, the sword of
St. Paul, the cross and martlets of St. Edmund, the lily of St. Mary, the
emblem of the Holy Trinity, or whatever the emblem may be of the saint in
question. (The alternative for a church is the banner of St. George, the
patron saint of the realm.) The flags upon public buildings should bear the
arms of the corporate bodies to whom those {474} buildings belong. The flag
to be flown by a private person, as the law now stands, should bear that
person's private arms, if he has any, and if he has not he should be
content to forego the pleasures arising from the use of bunting. A private
flag should be double its height in length. The entire surface should be
occupied by the coat of arms.

These flags of arms are _banners_, and it is quite a misnomer to term the
banner of the Royal Arms the Royal Standard. The flags of arms hung over
the stalls of the Knights of the Garter, St. Patrick, and the former
Knights of the Bath are properly, and are always termed _banners_. The term
_standard_ properly refers to the long tapering flag used in battle, and
under which an overlord mustered his retainers in battle. This did _not_
display his armorial bearings. Next to the staff usually came the cross of
St. George, which was depicted, of course, on a white field. This occupied
rather less than one-third of the standard. The remainder of the standard
was of the colour or colours of the livery, and thereupon was represented
all sorts of devices, usually the badges and sometimes the crest. The motto
was usually on transverse bands, which frequently divided the standard into
compartments for the different badges. These mottoes from their nature are
_not_ war-cries, but undoubtedly relate and belong to the badges with which
they appear in conjunction. The whole banner was usually fringed with the
livery colours, giving the effect of a bordure compony. The use of
standards does not seem, except for the ceremonial purposes of funerals, to
have survived the Tudor period, this doubtless being the result of the
creation of the standing army in the reign of Henry VIII. The few exotic
standards, _e.g._, remaining from the Jacobite rebellion, seldom conform to
the old patterns, but although the shape is altered, the artistic character
largely remains in the regimental colours of the present day with their
assorted regimental badges and scrolls with the names of battle honours.

With the recent revival of the granting of badges the standard has again
been brought into use as the vehicle to carry the badge (Plate VIII.). The
arms are now placed next the staff, and upon the rest of the field the
badge is repeated or alternated with the crest. Badges and standards are
now granted to any person already possessing a right to arms and willing to
pay the necessary fees.

PLATE VIII.

The armorial use of the banner in connection with the display of heraldic
achievements is very limited in this country. In the case of the Marquess
of Dufferin and Ava the banner or flag is an integral and unchangeable part
of the heraldic supporters, and in Ross-of-Bladensburg, _e.g._, it is
similarly an integral part of the crest. In the warrant of augmentation
granted to H.M. Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain on her marriage, banners of
the Royal Arms of {475} England were placed in the paws of her supporters.
Other cases where arms have been depicted on banners are generally no more
than matters of artistic design; but in the arms of Scotland as
matriculated in Lyon Register for King Charles II. the supporters are
accompanied by banners, the dexter being of the arms of Scotland, and the
sinister the banner of St. Andrew. These banners possess rather a different
character, and approach very closely to the German use. The same practice
has been followed in the seals of the Duchy of Lancaster, inasmuch as on
the obverse of the seal of George IV. and the seal of Queen Victoria the
Royal supporters hold banners of the arms of England and of the Duchy
(_i.e._ England, a label for difference). James I. on his Great Seal had
the banners of Cadwallader (azure, a cross patté fitché or) and King Edgar
(azure, a cross patonce between four martlets or), and on the Great Seal of
Charles I. the dexter supporter holds a banner of St. George, and the
sinister a banner of St. Andrew.

[Illustration: FIG. 688.--"Middle" arms of the Duchy of Saxe-Altenburg.
(From Ströhl's _Deutsche Wappenrolle_.)]

Of the heraldic use of the banner in Germany Ströhl writes:--

"The banner appears in a coat of arms, either in the hands or paws of the
supporters (Fig. 688), also set up behind the shield, or the pavilion, as,
for instance, in the larger achievement of his Majesty the German Emperor,
in the large achievement of the kingdom of Prussia, of the dukedom of
Saxe-Altenburg, and further in the Arms of State of Italy, Russia,
Roumania, &c.

"Banners on the shield as charges, or on the helmet as a crest, are here,
of course, not in question, but only those banners which serve as
_Prachtstücke_ (appendages of magnificence).

"The banners of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are long and narrow,
and frequently run in stripes, like battlements. However, in {476} the
second half of the thirteenth century flags were also to be met with, with
the longer side attached to the stick. Later on the banners became more
square, and show on the top a long strip, generally of another colour, the
_Schwenkel_ (_i.e._ something that flourishes), waves to and fro. To bear a
red _Schwenkel_ was a special privilege, similar to the right of sealing
with red wax.

"The ecclesiastical banner has three points, and is provided with rings on
the top in order that it may be fastened to the stick by them, in an
oblique position.

"The banner always represents the field of the shield, and assumes
accordingly its tincture. The charges of the shield should be placed upon
the banner without the outline of a shield, and the edge against the
flag-staff is considered the dexter; it follows from this that the figure
must be turned towards it.

"For instance, if the shield bear the following arms, argent an eagle
gules, the same figure, suited to the size of the flag, appears on the
banner, with its head turned towards the staff. If it be wished to
represent only the _colours_ of the arms upon the flag, that of the charge
is placed above, and that of the field below. Thus, for example, the
Prussian flag is black and white, corresponding to the black eagle on the
silver field; the flag of Hohenzollern is white and black, corresponding to
their coat of arms, quartered silver and black, because in the latter case,
so soon as a heraldic representation is available, from the position of the
coloured fields, the correct order of the tinctures is determined." {477}

CHAPTER 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.

[Illustration: FIG. 689.--The label.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 690.--Arms of John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (d. 1240):
Quarterly, or and gules, a bend sable, and a label argent. (MS. Cott. Nero,
D. 1.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 691.--Arms of John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (son of
John, Duke of Suffolk), d. 1487: Quarterly, 1 and 4, azure, a fess between
three leopards' faces or; 2 and 3, per fess gules and argent, a lion
rampant queue fourché or, armed and langued azure, over all a label argent.
(From his seal.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 692.--Arms of William Le Scrope, Earl of Wiltes (d.
1399): Quarterly, 1 and 4, the arms of the Isle of Man, a label argent; 2
and 3, azure, a bend or, a label gules. (From Willement's Roll, sixteenth
century.)]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 693.--Parteneck.]

[Illustration: FIG. 694.--Cammer.]

[Illustration: FIG. 695.--Cammerberg.]

[Illustration: FIG. 696.--Hilgertshauser.]

[Illustration: FIG. 697.--Massenhauser.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 698.--Seal of Elizabeth, widow of Philip, Duke of
Orleans.]

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."

[Illustration: FIG. 699.--The English marks of cadency.]

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}

[Illustration: FIG. 700.--King John, before his accession to the throne.
(From MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 701.--Edmund "Crouchback," Earl of Lancaster, second
son of Henry III. (From his tomb.) His arms are elsewhere given: De goules
ove trois leopardes passantz dor, et lambel dazure florete d'or.]

[Illustration: FIG. 702.--Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, d. 1322 (son of
preceding): England with a label azure, each point charged with three
fleurs-de-lis. (From his seal, 1301.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 703.--Henry of Lancaster, 1295-1324 (brother of
preceding, before he succeeded his brother as Earl of Lancaster): England
with a bend azure. (From his seal, 1301.) After 1324 he bore England with a
label as his brother.]

[Illustration: FIG. 704.--Henry, Duke of Lancaster, son of preceding. (From
his seal, 1358.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 705.--Edward of Carnarvon, Prince of Wales (afterwards
Edward II.), bore before 1307: England with a label azure. (From his seal,
1305.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 706.--John of Eltham (second son of Edward II.):
England with a bordure of the arms of France. (From his tomb.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 707.--Arms of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, 3rd
son of Edward I.: England within a bordure argent. The same arms were borne
by his descendant, Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent.]

[Illustration: FIG. 708.--Arms of John de Holand, Duke of Exeter (d. 1400):
England, a bordure of France. (From his seal, 1381.)]

{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}

[Illustration: FIG. 709.--John de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding.
Arms as preceding. (From his seal.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 710.--Henry de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of
preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1455.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 711.--Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, second son
of Edward I.: Arms of England, a label of three points argent.]

[Illustration: FIG. 712.--Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1400).
(From a drawing of his seal, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii., f. 166.) Arms, see
page 465.]

[Illustration: FIG. 713.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1432): Arms
as Fig. 711. (From his Garter plate.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 714.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461): Arms
as Fig. 711. (From his seal.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 715.--Edward the Black Prince: Quarterly, 1 and 4
France (ancient); 2 and 3 England, and a label of three points argent.
(From his tomb.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 716.--Richard, Prince of Wales (afterwards Richard
II.), son of preceding: Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1377.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 717.--Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of
King Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three
points argent, each point charged with three torteaux. (From his seal,
1391.) His son, Edward, Earl of Cambridge, until he succeeded his father,
_i.e._ before 1462, bore the same with an additional difference of a
bordure of Spain (Fig. 316). Vincent attributes to him, however, a label as
Fig. 719, which possibly he bore after his father's death.]

{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}

[Illustration: FIG. 718.--Richard, Duke of York (son of Edward, Earl of
Cambridge and Duke of York): Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1436.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 719.--Referred to under Fig. 717.]

[Illustration: FIG. 720.--Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, seventh
son of Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a bordure
argent. (From a drawing of his seal, 1391, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 721.--Henry of Monmouth, afterwards Henry V.: France
(modern) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent. (From his
seal.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 722.--Richard, Duke of Gloucester (afterwards Richard
III.): A label of three points ermine, on each point a canton gules.]

[Illustration: FIG. 723.--Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, fourth
son of Henry IV.: France (modern) and England quarterly, a bordure argent.
(From his seal.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 724.--John de Beaufort, Earl and Marquis of Somerset,
son of John of Gaunt. Arms subsequent to his legitimation: France and
England quarterly, within a bordure gobony azure and argent. Prior to his
legitimation he bore: Per pale argent and azure (the livery colours of
Lancaster), a bend of England (_i.e._ a bend gules charged with three lions
passant guardant or) with a label of France.]

[Illustration: FIG. 725.--Thomas, Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV.
France and England quarterly, a label of three points ermine. (From his
seal, 1413.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 726.--George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, brother of
Edward IV.: France and England quarterly, a label of three points argent,
each charged with a canton gules. (From MS. Harl. 521.)]

{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