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
spite of the fact that the warrants have no hereditary limitation, I am
only aware of two modern instances in which a warrant has been issued to
the son of a cadet of the Royal House who had previously received a
warrant. One of these was the late Duke of Cambridge. The warrant was
issued to him in his father's lifetime, and to the label previously
assigned to his father a second label of three points gules, to be borne
directly below the other, was added. The other case was that of his cousin,
afterwards Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover. In his case the second
label, also gules, was charged with the white horse of Hanover.
[Illustration: FIG. 727.--John, Duke of Bedford, third son of Henry IV.:
France and England quarterly, a label of five points, the two dexter
ermine, the three sinister azure, charged with three fleurs-de-lis or.
(From MS. Add. 18,850.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 728.--Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford: France and England
quarterly, a bordure azure, charged with martlets or. (From his seal.)
Although uncle of Henry VII., Jasper Tudor had no blood descent whatever
which would entitle him to bear these arms. His use of them is very
remarkable.]
[Illustration: FIG. 729.--Thomas de Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, brother of
John, Earl of Somerset (Fig. 724): France and England quarterly, a bordure
compony ermine and azure. (From his Garter plate.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 730.--John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, bore: France
(ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points _ermine_ (_i.e._
each point charged with three ermine spots).]
The label of the eldest son of the heir-apparent to the English throne is
not, as might be imagined, a plain label of five points, but the plain
label of three points, the centre point only being charged. The late Duke
of Clarence charged the centre point of his label of {497} three points
with a cross couped gules. After his death the Duke of York relinquished
the label of five points which he had previously borne, receiving one of
three, the centre point charged with an anchor. In every other case all of
the points are charged. The following examples of the labels in use at the
moment will show how the system now exists:--
_Prince of Wales._--A label of three points argent.
_Princess Royal_ (Louise, Duchess of Fife).--A label of five points argent,
charged on the centre and outer points with a cross of St. George gules,
and on the two others with a thistle proper.
_Princess Victoria._--A label of five points argent, charged with three
roses and two crosses gules.
_Princess Maud_ (H.M. The Queen of Norway).--A label of five points argent,
charged with three hearts and two crosses gules.
_The Duke of Edinburgh_ (Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).--A label of three
points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and on each of
the others an anchor azure. His son, the hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg
and Gotha, who predeceased his father, bore a label of five points, the
first, third, and fifth each charged with a cross gules, and the second and
fourth each with an anchor azure (Fig. 731).
[Illustration: FIG. 731.--Label of the late hereditary Prince of
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.]
_The Duke of Connaught._--A label of three points argent, the centre point
charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points with a
fleur-de-lis azure.
_The late Princess Royal_ (German Empress).--A label of three points
argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others
with a cross gules.
_The late Grand Duchess of Hesse._--A label of three points argent, the
centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others with an
ermine spot sable.
_Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein._--A label of three points, the
centre point charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points
with a rose gules.
_Princess Louise_ (Duchess of Argyll).--A label of three points, the centre
point charged with a rose, and each of the other two with a canton gules.
_Princess Henry of Battenberg._--A label of three points, the centre point
charged with a heart, and each of the other two with a rose gules.
_The late Duke of Albany._--A label of three points, the centre point
charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the other two with a heart
gules. {498}
_The Dukes of Cambridge._--The first Duke had a label of three points
argent, the centre point charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the
other two with _two_ hearts in pale gules. The warrant to the late Duke
assigned him the same label with the addition of a second label, plain, of
three points gules, to be borne below the former label.
_The first Duke of Cumberland._--A label of three points argent, the centre
point charged with a fleur-de-lis azure, and each of the other two points
with a cross of St. George gules.
Of the foregoing recently assigned labels all are borne over the plain
English arms (1 and 4 England, 2 Scotland, 3 Ireland), charged with the
escutcheon of Saxony, except those of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha,
Cambridge, and Cumberland. In the two latter cases the labels are borne
over the _latest_ version of the arms of King George III., _i.e._ with the
inescutcheon of Hanover, but, of course, neither the electoral bonnet nor
the later crown which surmounted the inescutcheon of Hanover was made use
of, and the smaller inescutcheon bearing the crown of Charlemagne was also
omitted for the children of George III., except in the case of the Prince
of Wales, who bore the plain inescutcheon of gules, but without the crown
of Charlemagne thereupon.
The labels for the other sons and daughters of King George III. were as
follows:--
_The Duke of York._--A label of three points argent, the centre point
charged with a cross gules. The Duke of York bore upon the inescutcheon of
Hanover an inescutcheon argent (in the place occupied in the Royal Arms by
the inescutcheon charged with the crown of Charlemagne) charged with a
wheel of six spokes gules, for the Bishopric of Osnaburgh, which he
possessed.
_The Duke of Clarence_ (afterwards William IV.).--A label of three points
argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and each of the others
with an anchor erect azure.
_The Duke of Kent_ had his label charged with a cross gules between two
fleurs-de-lis azure.
_The Duke of Sussex._--The label argent charged with two hearts in pale
gules in the centre point between two crosses gules.
_The Princess Royal_ (Queen of Würtemberg).--A rose between two crosses
gules.
_The Princess Augusta._--A like label, charged with a rose gules between
two ermine spots.
_The Princess Elizabeth_ (Princess of Hesse-Homburg).--A like label charged
with a cross between two roses gules.
_The Princess Mary_ (Duchess of Gloucester).--A like label, charged with a
rose between two cantons gules. {499}
_The Princess Sophia._--A like label, charged with a heart between two
roses gules.
_The Princess Amelia._--A like label, charged with a rose between two
hearts gules.
_The Duke of Gloucester_ (brother of George III.).--A label of _five_
points argent, charged with a fleur-de-lis azure between four crosses
gules. His son (afterwards Duke of Gloucester) bore an additional plain
label of three points during the lifetime of his father.
The Royal labels are placed across the shield, on the crest, and on each of
the supporters. The crest stands upon and is crowned with a coronet
identical with the circlet of any coronet of rank assigned in the same
patent; the lion supporter is crowned and the unicorn supporter is gorged
with a similar coronet. It may perhaps be of interest to note that no
badges and no motto are ever now assigned in these Royal Warrants except in
the case of the Prince of Wales.
F.-M. H.S.H. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the Consort of H.R.H. the
Princess Charlotte (only child of George IV.), received by warrant dated
April 7, 1818, the right "to use and bear the Royal Arms (without the
inescocheon of Charlemagne's crown, and without the Hanoverian Royal crown)
differenced with a label of five points argent, the centre point charged
with a rose gules, quarterly with the arms of his illustrious House ['Barry
of ten sable and or, a crown of rue in bend vert'], the Royal Arms in the
first and fourth quarters."
By Queen Victoria's desire this precedent was followed in the case of the
late Prince Consort, the label in his case being of three points argent,
the centre point charged with a cross gules, and, by a curious coincidence,
the arms of his illustrious House, with which the Royal Arms were
quartered, were again the arms of Saxony, these appearing in the second and
third quarters.
Quite recently a Royal Warrant has been issued for H.M. Queen Alexandra.
This assigns, upon a single shield within the Garter, the undifferenced
arms of His Majesty impaled with the undifferenced arms of Denmark. The
shield is surmounted by the Royal crown. The supporters are: (dexter) the
lion of England, and (sinister) a savage wreathed about the temples and
loins with oak and supporting in his exterior hand a club all proper. This
sinister supporter is taken from the Royal Arms of Denmark.
Abroad there is now no equivalent whatever to our methods of differencing
the Royal Arms. An official certificate was issued to me recently from
Denmark of the undifferenced Royal Arms of Denmark certified as correct for
the "Princes and Princesses" of that country. But the German Crown Prince
bears his shield within a bordure gules, and anciently in France (from
which country the English system was {500} very probably originally
derived) the differencing of the Royal French Arms for the younger branches
seems to have been carefully attended to, as has been already specified.
Differencing in Scotland is carried out on an entirely different basis from
differencing in England. In Scotland the idea is still rigidly preserved
and adhered to that the coat of arms of a family belongs only to the head
of the family for the time being, and the terms of a Scottish grant are as
follows: "Know ye therefore that we have devised and do by these presents
assign ratify and confirm to the said ---- and his descendants _with such
congruent differences as may hereafter be matriculated for them the
following ensigns armorial_." Under the accepted interpretation of Scottish
armorial law, whilst the inherent gentility conferred by a patent of arms
is not denied to cadets, no right to make use of arms is conceded to them
until such time as they shall elect to matriculate the arms of their
ancestor in their own names. This point has led to a much purer system of
heraldry in Scotland than in England, and there is far less heraldic abuse
in that country as a result, because the differences are decided not
haphazardly by the user himself, as is the case in England, but by a
competent officer of arms. Moreover the constant occasions of matriculation
bring the arms frequently under official review. There is no fixed rule
which decides _ipse facto_ what difference shall be borne, and consequently
this decision has retained in the hands of the heraldic executive an amount
of control which they still possess far exceeding that of the executive in
England, and perhaps the best way in which to state the rules which hold
good will be to reprint a portion of one of the Rhind Lectures, delivered
by Sir James Balfour Paul, which is devoted to the point:--
"I have said that in Scotland the principle which limited the number of
paternal coats led to a careful differencing of these coats as borne by the
junior branches of the family. Though the English system was sometimes
used, it has never obtained to any great extent in Scotland, the practice
here being generally to difference by means of a bordure, in which way many
more generations are capable of being distinguished than is possible by the
English method. The weak point of the Scottish system is that, whilst the
general idea is good, there is no definite rule whereby it can be carried
out on unchanging lines; much is left to the discretion of the authorities.
"As a general rule, it may be stated that the second son bears a plain
bordure of the tincture of the principal charge in the shield, and his
younger brothers also bear plain bordures of varying tinctures. In the next
generation the eldest son of the second son would bear his father's coat
and bordure without change; the second son would have the bordure
engrailed; the third, invected; the fourth, indented, {501} and so on, the
other sons of the younger sons in this generation differencing their
father's bordures in the same way. The junior members of the next
generation might have their bordures parted per pale, the following
generations having their bordures parted per fess and per saltire, per
cross or quarterly, gyronny or compony, that is, divided into alternate
spaces of metal or colour in a single trace--this, however, being often in
Scotland a mark of illegitimacy--counter-compone or a similar pattern in
two tracts, or chequy with three or more tracts.
"You will see that these modifications of the simple bordure afford a great
variety of differences, and when they are exhausted the expedient can then
be resorted to of placing on the bordures charges taken from other coats,
often from those of a maternal ancestor; or they may be arbitrarily
assigned to denote some personal characteristic of the bearer, as in the
case of James Maitland, Major in the Scots regiment of Foot Guards, who
carries the dismembered lion of his family within a bordure wavy azure
charged with eight hand grenades or, significant, I presume, of his
military profession.
"You will observe that, with all these varieties of differencing we have
mentioned, the younger branches descending from the original eldest son of
the parent house are still left unprovided with marks of cadency. These,
however, can be arranged for by taking the ordinary which appears in their
father's arms and modifying its boundary lines. Say the original coat was
'argent, a chevron gules,' the second son of the eldest son would have the
chevron engrailed, but without any bordure; the third, invected, and so on;
and the next generations the systems of bordures accompanying the modified
chevron would go on as before. And when all these methods are exhausted,
differences can still be made in a variety of ways, _e.g._ by charging the
ordinary with similar charges in a similar manner to the bordure as Erskine
of Shielfield, a cadet of Balgownie, who bore: 'Argent, on a pale sable, a
cross crosslet fitchée or within a bordure azure'; or by the introduction
of an ordinary into a coat which had not one previously, a bend or the
ribbon (which is a small bend) being a favourite ordinary to use for this
purpose. Again, we occasionally find a change of tincture of the field of
the shield used to denote cadency.
"There are other modes of differencing which need not be alluded to in
detail, but I may say that on analysing the earlier arms in the Lyon
Register, I find that the bordure is by far the most common method of
indicating cadency, being used in no less than 1080 cases. The next most
popular way is by changing the boundary lines of an ordinary, which is done
in 563 shields; 233 cadets difference their arms by the insertion of a
smaller charge on the ordinary and 195 on {502} the shield. A change of
tincture, including counterchanging, is carried out in 155 coats, and a
canton is added in 70 cases, while there are 350 coats in which two or more
of the above methods are used. From these figures, which are approximately
correct, you will see the relative frequency of the various modes of
differencing. You will also note that the original coat of a family can be
differenced in a great many ways so as to show the connection of cadets
with the parent house. The drawback to the system is that heralds have
never arrived at a uniform treatment so as to render it possible to
calculate the exact relationship of the cadets. Much is left, as I said, to
the discretion of the officer granting the arms; but still it gives
considerable assistance in determining the descent of a family."
The late Mr. Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute, who was an able herald,
particularly in matters relating to Scotland, had elaborated a definite
system of these bordures for differencing which would have done much to
simplify Scottish cadency. Its weak point was obviously this, that it could
only be applied to new matriculations of arms by cadets; and so, if adopted
as a definite and unchangeable matter of rule, it might have occasioned
doubt and misunderstanding in future times with regard to many important
Scottish coats now existing, without reference to Mr. Stodart's system. But
the scheme elaborated by Mr. Stodart is now accepted as the broad basis of
the Scottish system for matriculations (Fig. 732).
In early Scottish seals the bordures are to so large an extent engrailed as
to make it appear that the later and present rule, which gives the plain
bordure to immediate cadets, was not fully recognised or adopted. Bordures
charged appear at a comparatively early date in Scotland. The bordure
compony in Scotland and the bordure wavy in England, which are now used to
signify illegitimacy, will be further considered in a subsequent chapter,
but neither one nor the other originally carried any such meaning. The
doubtful legitimacy of the Avondale and Ochiltree Stewarts, who bore the
bordure compony in Scotland, along with its use by the Beauforts in
England, has tended latterly to bring that difference into disrepute in the
cadency of lawful sons--yet some of the bearers of that bordure during the
first twenty years of the Lyon Register were unquestionably legitimate,
whilst others, as SCOTT of Gorrenberry and PATRICK SINCLAIR of Ulbester,
were illegitimate, or at best only legitimated. The light in which the
bordure compony had come to be regarded is shown by a Royal Warrant granted
in 1679 to JOHN LUNDIN of that Ilk, allowing him to drop the coat which his
family had hitherto carried, and, as descended of a natural son of WILLIAM
THE LION, to bear the arms of Scotland within a bordure compony argent and
azure. {503}
The bordure counter-compony is assigned to fifteen persons, none of them,
it is believed, of illegitimate descent, and some expressly said to be
"lineallie and lawfulie descended" from the ancestor whose arms they bore
thus differenced. The idea of this bordure having been at any time a mark
of bastardy is a very modern error, arising from a confusion with the
bordure compony.
[Illustration: FIG. 732.--The scheme of Cadency Bordures devised by Mr.
Stodart.]
In conclusion, attention needs to be pointedly drawn to the fact that all
changes in arms are not due to cadency, nor is it safe always to presume
cadency from proved instances of change. Instead of merely detailing
isolated instances of variation in a number of different families, the
matter may be better illustrated by closely following the successive
variations in the same family, and an instructive instance is met with in
the case of the arms of the family of Swinton of that Ilk. This is
peculiarly instructive, because at no point in the descent covered by the
arms referred to is there any doubt or question as to the fact of
legitimate descent.
Claiming as they do a male descent and inheritance from Liulf the son of
Edulf, Vicecomes of Northumbria, whose possession before {504} 1100 of the
lands of Swinton is the earliest contemporary evidence which has come down
to us of landowning by a Scottish subject, it is unfortunate that we cannot
with authority date their armorial ensigns before the later half of the
thirteenth century. Charters there are in plenty. Out of the twenty-three
earliest Scottish writings given in the National MSS. of Scotland, nine,
taken from the Coldingham documents preserved at Durham, refer to the
village and lands of Swinton. Among these are two confirmations by David
I., _i.e._ before 1153, of Swinton "in hereditate sibi et heredibus" to
"meo militi Hernulfo" or "Arnolto isti meo Militi," the first of the family
to follow the Norman fashion, and adopt the territorial designation of de
Swinton; while at Durham and elsewhere, Cospatric de Swinton and his son
Alan and grandson Alan appear more than eighty times in charters before
1250.
[Illustration: FIG. 733.--Seal of Alan de Swinton, _c._ 1271.]
But it is not till we come to _c._ 1271 that we find a Swinton seal still
attached to a charter. This is a grant by a third Alan of the Kirk croft of
Lower Swinton to God and the blessed Cuthbert and the blessed Ebba and the
Prior and Monks of Coldingham. The seal is of a very early form (Fig. 733),
and may perhaps have belonged to the father and grandfather of the
particular Alan who uses it.
Of the Henry de Swinton who came next, and who swore fealty to Edward the
First of England at Berwick in 1296, and of yet a fourth Alan, no seals are
known. These were turbulent days throughout Scotland: but then we find a
distinct advance; a shield upon a diapered ground, and upon it the single
boar has given place to the three boars' heads which afterwards became so
common in Scotland. Nisbet lends his authority to the tradition that all
the families of Border birth who carried them--Gordon, Nisbet, Swinton,
Redpath, Dunse, he mentions, and he might have added others--were
originally of one stock, and if so, the probability must be that the breed
sprung from Swinton.
[Illustration: FIG. 734.--Seal of Henry de Swinton, 1378.]
This seal (Fig. 734) was put by a second Henry de Swynton to one of the
family charters, probably of the date of 1378, which have lately been
placed for safe keeping in the Register House in Edinburgh.
His successor, Sir John, the hero of Noyon in Picardy, of Otterburn, and
Homildon, was apparently the first of the race to use {505} supporters. His
seal (Fig. 735) belongs to the second earliest of the Douglas charters
preserved at Drumlanrig. Its date is 1389, and Sir John de Swintoun is
described as Dominus de Mar, a title he bore by right of his marriage with
Margaret, Countess of Douglas and Mar. This probably also accounts for his
coronet, and it is interesting to note that the helmet, coronet, and crest
are the exact counterpart of those on the Garter plate of Ralph, Lord
Basset, in St. George's Chapel at Windsor. It is possibly more than a
coincidence, for Froissart mentions them both as fighting in France ten to
twenty years earlier.
[Illustration: FIG. 735.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1389.]
[Illustration: FIG. 736.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1475.]
[Illustration: FIG. 737.--Seal of Robert Swinton, of that Ilk, 1598.]
[Illustration: FIG. 738.--Arms of Swinton. (From Swinton Church, 163-.)]
Of his son, the second Sir John, "Lord of that Ilk," we have no seal. His
lance it was that overthrew Thomas, Duke of Clarence, the brother of Henry
V., at Beaugé in 1421, and he fell, a young man, three years later with the
flower of the Scottish army at Verneuil; but in 1475 his son, a third Sir
John, uses the identical crest and shield which his descendants carry to
this day (Fig. 736). John had become a common name in the family, and the
same or a similar seal did duty for the next three generations; but in 1598
we find the great-great-grandson, Robert Swinton of that Ilk, who
represented Berwickshire in the first regularly constituted Parliament of
Scotland, altering the character of the boars' heads (Fig. 737). He would
also appear to have placed upon the chevron something which is difficult to
decipher, but is probably the rose so borne by the Hepburns, his second
wife having been a daughter of Sir Patrick Hepburn of Whitecastle.
Whatever the charge was, it disappeared from the shield (Fig. 738) erected
on the outer wall of Swinton Church by his second son and eventual heir,
Sir Alexander, also member for his native county; but {506} the boars'
heads are turned the other way, perhaps in imitation of those above the
very ancient effigy of the first Sir Alan inside the church.
Sir Alexander's son, John Swinton, "Laird Swinton" Carlyle calls him,
wrecked the family fortunes. According to Bishop Burnet he was "the man of
all Scotland most trusted and employed by Cromwell," and he died a Quaker,
excommunicated and forfeited. To the circumstance that when, in 1672, the
order went out that all arms were to be officially recorded, he was a
broken man under sentence that his arms should be "laceret and delete out
of the Heralds' Books," we probably owe it that until of late years no
Swinton arms appeared on the Lyon Register.
[Illustration: FIG. 739.--Bookplate of Sir John Swinton of that Ilk, 1707.]
[Illustration: FIG. 740.--Bookplate of Archibald Swinton of Kimmerghame.]
Then to come to less stirring times, and turn to book-plates. His son, yet
another Sir John of that Ilk, in whose favour the forfeiture was rescinded,
sat for Berwickshire in the last Parliament of Scotland and the first of
Great Britain. His bookplate (Fig. 739) is one of the earliest Scottish
dated plates.
His grandson, Captain Archibald Swinton of Kimmerghame, county Berwick
(Fig. 740), was an ardent book collector up to his death in 1804, and
Archibald's great-grandson, Captain George C. Swinton (Fig. 741), walked as
March Pursuivant in the procession in Westminster Abbey at the coronation
of King Edward the Seventh of {507} England in 1902, and smote on the gate
when that same Edward as First of Scotland claimed admission to his castle
of Edinburgh in 1903.
[Illustration: FIG. 741.--Bookplate of Captain George S. Swinton, March
Pursuivant of Arms.]
The arms as borne to-day by the head of the family, John Edulf Blagrave
Swinton of Swinton Bank, a lieutenant in the Lothians and Berwickshire
Imperial Yeomanry, are as given (Plate IV.). {508}