THE MARSHALLING OF ARMS
The science of marshalling is the conjoining of two or more coats of arms
upon one shield for the purpose of indicating sovereignty, dominion,
alliance, descent, or pretension, according to recognised rules and
regulations, by the employment of which the story of any given achievement
shall be readily translatable.
The methods of marshalling are (1) dimidiation, (2) impalement, (3)
quartering, (4) superimposition.
Instances of quartered shields are to be met with possibly before
impalements or dimidiation. The earliest attempt at anything like a
regularised method of procedure to signify marriage was that usually males
_quartered_ the arms of their wives or ancestresses from whom they acquired
their lands; whilst impaled coats were to all intents and purposes the
armorial bearings of married women, or more frequently of widows who took
an immediate interest in their husbands' property. This ancient usage
brings home very forcibly the former territorial connection of arms and
land. The practice of the husband impaling the wife's arms, whether heiress
or not, probably arose near the close of the fifteenth century. Even now it
is laid down that the arms of a wife should not in general be borne upon
the husband's banner, surcoat, or official seal.
But impalement as we now know it was preceded by dimidiation. Dimidiation,
which was but a short-lived method, was effected by the division of the
shield down the centre. On the dexter side was placed the dexter half of
the husband's arms, and on the sinister side was placed the sinister half
of the wife's arms. With some coats of arms no objection could be urged
against the employment of this method. But it was liable to result (_e.g._
with two coats of arms having the same ordinary) in the creation of a
design which looked far more like one simple coat than a conjunction of
two. The dimidiation of "argent, a bend gules" and "argent, a chevron
sable" would simply result in a single coat "argent, a bend per pale gules
and sable." This fault of the system must have made itself manifest at an
early period, for we soon find it became customary to introduce about
two-thirds of {524} the design of each coat for the sake of demonstrating
their separate character. It must soon thereafter have become apparent that
if two-thirds of the design of a coat of arms could be squeezed into half
of the shield there was no valid reason why the whole of the design could
not be employed. This therefore became customary under the name of
impalement, and the practice has ever since remained with us. Few examples
indeed of dimidiation are to be met with, and as a practical method of
conjunction, the practice was chiefly in vogue during the earlier part of
the fourteenth century.
Occasionally quartered coats were dimidiated, in which case the first and
third quarters of the husband's coat were conjoined with the second and
fourth of the wife's. As far as outward appearance went, this practice
resulted in the fact that no distinction existed from a plain quartered
coat. Thus the seal of Margaret of Bavaria, Countess of Holland, and wife
of John, Count de Nevers, in 1385 (afterwards Duke of Burgundy), bears a
shield on which is apparently a simple instance of quartering, but really a
dimidiated coat. The two coats to the dexter side of the palar line are: In
chief Burgundy-Modern ("France-Ancient, a bordure compony argent and
gules"), and in base Burgundy-Ancient. On the sinister side the coat in
chief is Bavaria ("Bendy-lozengy argent and azure"); and the one in base
contains the quartered arms of Flanders ("Or, a lion rampant sable"); and
Holland ("Or, a lion rampant gules"); the lines dividing these latter
quarters being omitted, as is usually found to be the case with this
particular shield.
Certain examples can be found amongst the Royal Arms in England which show
much earlier instances of dimidiation. The arms of Margaret of France, who
died in 1319, the second queen of Edward I., as they remain on her tomb in
Westminster Abbey, afford an example of this method of conjunction. The
arms of England appear on the dexter side of the escocheon; and this coat
undergoes a certain amount of curtailment, though the dimidiation is not
complete, portions only of the hindmost parts of the lions being cut off by
the palar line. The coat of France, on the sinister side, of course does
not readily indicate the dimidiation.
Boutell, in his chapter on marshalling in "Heraldry, Historical and
Popular," gives several early examples of dimidiation. The seal of Edmond
Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall (d. 1300), bears his arms (those of Richard,
Earl of Cornwall, and King of the Romans) dimidiating those of his wife,
Margaret de Clare. Here only the sinister half of his bordure is removed,
while the Clare coat ("Or, three chevrons gules") is entirely dimidiated,
and the chevrons are little distinguishable from bends. Both coats are
dimidiated in other examples mentioned {525} by Boutell, viz. William de
Valence and his wife, and Alianore Montendre and her husband Guy Ferre. On
the seal of Margaret Campbell, wife of Alexander Napier, in 1531, the
shield shows upon the dexter side the arms of Lennox, and on the sinister
the dimidiated coat (the sinister half of the quartered arms) of Campbell
and Lorn. This results in the galley of Lorn being in chief, and the
Campbell gyrons in base.
An early and interesting Irish example of this kind of marshalling is
afforded by a dimidiated coat of Clare and Fitzgerald, which now figures on
the official seal of the Provosts of Youghal (Clare: "Or, three chevrons
gules." Fitzgerald: "Argent, a saltire gules, with a label of five points
in chief"). Both these coats are halved. They result from the marriage of
Richard Clare, Earl of Hertford, with Juliana, daughter and heir of Maurice
Fitzgerald, feudal lord of Inchiquin and Youghal.
An even more curious case of dimidiation comes to light in the arms
formerly used by the Abbey of St. Etienne at Caen, in which the arms of
England and those attributed to the Duchy of Normandy ("Gules, two lions
passant guardant or") were dimidiated, so that in the former half three of
the fore-quarters of the lions appear, while in the sinister half only two
of the hind-quarters are represented.
Dimidiation was not always effected by conjunction down the palar line,
other partition lines of the shield being occasionally, though very rarely,
employed in this manner.
Certain curious (now indivisible) coats of arms remain which undoubtedly
originated in the dimidiation of two separate coats, _e.g._ the arms of
Yarmouth, Sandwich, Hastings, Rye, and Chester. In all cases some Royal
connection can be traced which has caused the Royal Arms of England to be
conjoined with the earlier devices of fish, ships, or garbs which had been
employed by the towns in question. It is worth the passing thought,
however, whether the conjoined lions and hulks used by the Cinque Ports may
not originally have been a device of the Sovereign for naval purposes, or
possibly the naval version of the Royal Arms (see page 182).
One other remainder from the practice of dimidiation still survives amongst
the presently existing rules of heraldry. It is a rule to which no modern
authoritative exception can be mentioned. When a coat within a bordure is
impaled with another coat, the bordure is not continued down the centre of
the shield, but stops short at top and bottom when the palar line is
reached. This rule is undoubtedly a result of the ancient method of
conjunction by dimidiation, but the curious point is that, at the period
when dimidiation was employed and during the period which followed, some
number of examples can be {526} found where the bordure is continued round
the whole coat which is within it.
The arms of man and wife are now conjoined according to the following
rules:--If the wife is not an heraldic heiress the two coats are impaled.
If the wife be an heraldic heir or coheir, in lieu of impalement the arms
of her family are placed on an inescutcheon superimposed on the centre of
her husband's arms, the inescutcheon being termed an escutcheon of
pretence, because _jure uxoris_ she being an heiress of her house, the
husband "pretends" to the representation of her family.
For heraldic purposes it therefore becomes necessary to define the terms
heir and heiress. It is very essential that the point should be thoroughly
understood, because quarterings other than those of augmentation can only
be inherited from or through female ancestors who are in themselves heirs
or coheirs (this is the true term, or, rather, the ancient term, though
they are now usually referred to colloquially as heiresses or coheiresses)
in blood, or whose issue subsequently become in a later generation the
representatives of any ancestor in the male line of that female ancestor. A
woman is an "heir" or "heiress" (1) if she is an only child; (2) if all her
brothers die without leaving any issue to survive, either male or female;
(3) she becomes an heiress "in her issue," as it is termed, if she die
leaving issue herself if and when all the descendants male and female of
her brothers become absolutely extinct. The term "coheir" or "coheiress" is
employed in cases similar to the foregoing when, instead of one daughter,
there are two or more.
No person can be "heir" or "coheir" of another person until the latter is
dead, though he or she may be heir-apparent or heir-presumptive. Though the
word "heir" is frequently used with regard to material matters, such usage
is really there incorrect, except in cases of intestacy. A person
benefiting under a will is a legatee of money, or a devisee of land, and
not an heir to either. The table on page 527 may make things a little
clearer, but in the following remarks intestacy is ignored, and the
explanations apply solely to _heirship of blood_.
Charles in the accompanying pedigree is, after 1800, _heir_ of David.
Thomas is _heir-apparent_ of Charles, being a son and the eldest born. He
dies _v.p._ (_vita patris_, _i.e._ in the lifetime of his father) and never
becomes heir. A daughter can never become an heir-apparent, as there is
always, during the lifetime of her father, the possibility of a son being
born. Mary, Ellen, and Blanche are coheirs of Thomas their father, whom
they survive, and they are also coheirs of their grandfather Charles, to
whom they succeed, and they would properly in a pedigree be described as
both. They are heirs-general of Thomas, Charles, and David, and, being the
heirs of the senior line, they are heirs-general or coheirs-general of
their house. David being possessed of the barony "by writ" of Cilfowyr, it
would "fall into abeyance" at the death of Charles between the three
daughters equally.
{527}
DAVID CILFOWYR, created Duke of London
in the Peerage of the United Kingdom,
remainder to him and the heirs male of his body,
was Earl of Edinburgh in the Peerage of Scotland
(with remainder to his heirs), and Lord Cilfowyr
by writ in the Peerage of England
(with remainder to his heirs-general). Died 1800.
|
--------------------------------------------------
| |
CHARLES CILFOWYR, OWEN CILFOWYR, Esq.,
elder son and heir; head of commonly called Lord Owen
his house, Duke of London, Cilfowyr by courtesy.
Earl of Edinburgh, and Lord Cilfowyr. Died 1870.
Died 1840. |
| --------------------------------------------------
| | | |
| | | |
| ROBERT CILFOWYR, Esq., PHILIP CILFOWYR, Esq., |
| eldest son, becomes heir second son. Died 1879. |
| male of his house in 1880 | |
| at the death of George, and ADA, only child, has |
| as such succeeds as Duke of no courtesy title. |
| London. Died 1896. Living in 1900. |
| | |
| HARRIET CILFOWYR, |
| only child, by CECIL CILFOWYR, Esq.,
| courtesy after 1880 third son. When his brother
| Lady Harriet Cilfowyr. succeeds in 1880 as Duke of
| Died 1897. London he petitions the
| Queen for that style and
| precedence which he would
| have enjoyed had his father
| lived to inherit the Dukedom.
| His petition being granted,
| he becomes by courtesy Lord
| Cecil Cilfowyr, until he
| succeeds in 1896, at the
| death of his brother, to
| the Dukedom of London.
|
---------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
THOMAS CILFOWYR, Esq., | | | ISABEL CILFOWYR,
eldest son and heir-apparent, | | | styled by courtesy as
styled Earl of Edinburgh by | | | Lady Isabel Cilfowyr.
courtesy. Died _v.p._ | | | Living 1900.
1830, so never succeeds. | | |
| | | |
| | | IRENE CILFOWYR,
| | | styled by courtesy as
| | | Lady Irene Cilfowr
| | | Living 1900.
| | |
| ---------------- |
| | |
| | |
| EDMOND CILFOWYR, Esq., |
| second son, styled by courtesy |
| courtesy Lord Edmond Cilfowyr |
| until 1840, when he succeeds |
| as Duke of London. Died 1850. |
| | |
| | --------------
| | |
| | JOHN CILFOWYR, Esq., = EDITH TORKINGTON,
| | third son, styled by | succeeds in 1861 as
| | courtesy Lord John Cilfowyr | _suo jure_ Baroness
| | until 1850, when he | Neville by writ in England,
| | succeeds as Duke of London. | and Countess of Torkington
| | London. Died 1870. | (to herself and her heirs)
| | | in Scotland. Died 1862.
| | |
| | -----------------------------
| | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- |
| | |
------------------------------------------------- | |
| | | | |
MARY CILFOWYR, ELLEN CILFOWYR, BLANCHE CILFOWYR, | |
Countess of styled by courtesy styled by courtesy | |
Edinburgh. Lady Ellen Cilfowyr. Lady Blanche Cilfowyr. | |
Living 1900. Living 1900. Living 1900. | |
_Heir of Line._ | |
| | | |
------------------------------------------- | |
| | |
The Barony of Cilfowyr falls into abeyance between these | |
three equally. In Scottish phraseology they are termed | |
heirs portioners. | |
--------------------------------- |
| | |
GRACE CILFOWYR, MURIEL CILFOWYR, |
styled by courtesy styled by courtesy |
Lady Grace Cilfowyr, Lady Muriel Cilfowyr. |
elder dau. Living 1900. Living 1900. |
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
GEORGE CILFOWYR, Esq., ALICE CILFOWYR, |
only son, and so styled styled by courtesy |
until 1850, when his father succeeds Lady Alice Cilfowyr until |
as Duke of London. As son of a Duke 1885, when she succeeds as |
he then becomes by courtesy Lord George Countess of Torkington. |
Cilfowyr, and this is his proper Died 1887, _s.p._ |
description, because his father has no |
minor title which he could assume. But |
by a quite modern custom which has -------------------------
sprung up of late years he would very |
probably call himself "Lord Cilfowyr." ANNIE CILFOWYR, = REGINALD
In 1861 his mother succeeds in her styled by courtesy | SHERWIN.
own right to two titles, and by Lady Annie Cilfowyr | Died 1872.
courtesy he would thenceforward be and Lady Annie |
styled by her minor title as Lord Sherwin. Died 1870. |
Neville until her death in 1862, when |
he becomes Earl of Torkington in his |
own right and also Lord Neville. ----------------------
At his father's death in 1870 he | |
becomes Duke of London. Died 1880. | LILIAN SHERWIN,
| | only daughter, known
| | as Lady Lilian Sherwin
DOROTHY CILFOWYR, styled | until 1896, when she
Lady Dorothy Cilfowyr until 1880, | succeeds as Countess
when she becomes _suo jure_ | of Torkington and
Countess of Torkington and Baroness | Baroness Neville.
Neville. Died _s.p._ 1885. | Living 1900.
|
ARTHUR SHERWIN,
only son and heir,
succeeds as Earl
of Torkington and
Lord Neville in 1887,
at the death of
his aunt. Died 1888.
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| | |
MARIA SHERWIN, called JANE SHERWIN, |
by courtesy Lady Maria Sherwin, by courtesy Lady Jane |
succeeds in 1888 as Countess of Sherwin, succeeds as |
Torkington and senior coheir Countess of Torkington |
to the Barony of Neville, in 1889, but the |
which falls into abeyance between Barony of Neville again |
herself and her sisters. The falls into abeyance |
Queen determines the abeyance between herself and her |
in her favour, and she consequently younger sister. |
becomes also Baroness Died _s.p._ 1890. |
Neville. Died _s.p._ 1889. |
-------------
|
HANNAH SHERWIN,
called by courtesy
Lady Hannah Sherwin.
She succeeds in 1890
as sole heir of her
father, and consequently
the abeyance determines
of itself, and she
becomes both Countess
of Torkington and
Baroness Neville.
Died _s.p._ 1896.
{528}
In Scotland Mary, Ellen, and Blanche would be termed "heirs portioners,"
and Mary, being an heiress and the eldest born in the direct and senior
line, would be termed the "heir of line." David being possessed of an
ancient Scottish peerage not limited to males (the Earldom of Edinburgh),
Mary, the heir of line, would at once succeed in her own right as Countess
of Edinburgh on the death of her grandfather Charles. If the family were an
untitled Scottish family entitled to supporters, these would descend to
Mary unless they had been specifically granted with some other limitation.
At the death of Thomas in 1830 Edmond becomes heir male apparent, and at
the death of his father in 1840 Edmond becomes heir male of his house until
his death. David having been created a peer (Duke of London) with remainder
to the heirs male of his body, Edmond succeeded as Duke of London at the
death of Charles in 1840. Grace and Muriel are coheirs of Edmond after his
death. They are _not_ either coheirs or heirs-general of Charles, in spite
of the fact that their father was his heir male. At the death of Charles in
1840, when Edmond succeeded as heir male, John succeeded as heir male
presumptive to Edmond. He was not heir-apparent, because a son might at any
moment have been born to Edmond. An heir-apparent and an heir-presumptive
cannot exist at the same time, for whilst there is an heir-apparent there
cannot be an heir-presumptive. John succeeded as heir male of his house,
and therefore as Duke of London, in 1850, at the death of his elder brother
Edmond; but, though John was the "heir male" of his said elder brother, he
was _not_ his "heir" (Grace and Muriel being the coheirs of Edmond), nor
was he the "heir male of the body" of Edmond, not being descended from him.
John, however, was "heir male of the body" of Charles. George is
heir-apparent of John until his death in 1870, when George succeeds as
"heir" of his father and heir male of his house, and consequently Duke of
London. At his death in 1880 Dorothy becomes the "sole heir," or, more
properly, the "sole heir-general," of her father George; but his kinsman
Robert becomes his "heir male," and therefore Duke of London, in spite of
the fact that there was a much nearer male relative, viz. a nephew, Arthur,
the son of his sister. Robert also becomes the heir male of the body of
Owen and heir male of his house, and as such Duke of London. He would also
be generally described as the heir male of the body of David.
At the death of Dorothy in 1885 her coheirs were her aunt Alice and her
cousin Arthur equally, and though these really were the coheirs {529} of
_Dorothy_ (the claims of Alice and Annie being equal, and the rights of
Annie having devolved upon Arthur), they would more usually be found
described as the coheirs of George or of John. Annie was never _herself_
really a coheir, because she died before her brother, but "in her issue"
she became the coheir of Dorothy, though she would, after 1885, be usually
described as "in her issue" a coheir of George, or possibly even of John,
though this would be an inexact description. Arthur was heir of his mother
after 1870, heir of his father after 1872, and heir-apparent of his father
before that date; after 1885 he is a coheir of Dorothy, and after 1887 sole
heir of Dorothy and sole heir of Alice. He would also be usually described
as heir-general of George, and heir-general of John. Let us suppose that
John had married Edith Torkington, an English baroness (_suo jure_) by writ
(Baroness Neville), who had died in 1862. At that date the barony would
have descended to her eldest son George until his death in 1880, when
Dorothy, _suo jure_, would have succeeded. At her death in 1885 the barony
would have fallen into abeyance between Alice and Arthur. At the death of
Alice in 1887 the abeyance would be at an end, and the barony in its
entirety would have devolved upon Arthur, who would have enjoyed it until
at his death in 1888 the barony would have again fallen into abeyance
between Maria, Jane, and Hannah equally. It is not unlikely that Her
Majesty might have "determined the abeyance," or "called the barony out of
abeyance" (the meanings of the terms are identical) in favour of Maria, who
would consequently have enjoyed the barony in its entirety. At her death in
1889 it would again fall into abeyance between Jane and Hannah. At Jane's
death in 1890 Hannah became sole heir, and the abeyance came to an end when
Hannah succeeded to the barony. At her death it would pass to her aunt
Lilian. Hannah would usually be described as "coheir and subsequently sole
heir of" Arthur. If the Baroness Neville had been possessed of an ancient
Scottish Peerage (the Earldom of Torkington) it would have passed
undividedly and in full enjoyment to the heir of line, _i.e._ in 1862 to
George, 1880 to Dorothy, 1885 to Alice, 1887 to Arthur, 1888 to Maria, 1889
to Jane, 1890 to Hannah, and 1896 to Lilian, the last (shown on the
pedigree) in remainder. Lilian does not become an heiress until 1896, when
the whole issue of her brother becomes extinct. Irene and Isabel never
become heirs at all.
Robert, as we have seen, became heir male of his house and Duke of London
in 1880. At his death (1896) Harriet becomes sole heir of Robert, but at
her death in 1897 his niece Ada, the only child of his younger brother
Philip, who had predeceased him, would be usually referred to as heir of
Robert, whilst Cecil is heir male of his house. {530}
When the term "of the body" is employed, _actual descent_ from that person
is signified, _e.g._ Arthur after 1885 is "collateral" heir-general of
Dorothy, but "heir-general of the body" of Edith Torkington.
An "heir of entail," or, to use the Scottish term, the "heir of tailzie,"
is merely the person succeeding to _property_ under a specific remainder
contained in a deed of entail. This has no relation to heirship in blood,
and the term, from an armorial point of view, might be entirely
disregarded, were it not that some number of Scottish coats of arms, and a
greater number of Scottish supporters, and some Scottish peerages and
baronetcies, are specifically granted and limited to the heirs of entail.
There are a few similar English grants following upon Royal Licences for
change of name and arms.
[Illustration: FIG. 742.]
[Illustration: FIG. 743.]
[Illustration: FIG. 744.]
The term "heir in expectancy" is sometimes heard, but it is not really a
proper term, and has no exact or legal meaning. When George was alive his
daughter Dorothy was his heir-presumptive, but supposing that Dorothy were
a Catholic nun and Alice a lunatic, in each of which cases there would be
very little likelihood of any marriage ever taking place, Arthur would very
generally be described as "heir in expectancy," for though he was neither
heir-apparent nor heir-presumptive, all probability pointed to the eventual
succession of himself or his issue.
Anybody is said to be "in remainder" to entailed property or a peerage if
he is included within the recited limits of the entail or peerage. The
"heir in remainder" is the person next entitled to succeed after the death
of the existing holder.
Thus (excluding heirs in expectancy and women who are {531}
heirs-presumptive) a marriage with any woman who is an heir or coheir
results in her arms being placed upon an escutcheon of pretence over the
arms of the husband. In the cases of all other women the arms are "impaled"
only. To "impale two coats" the shield is divided by a straight line down
the centre, the whole design of the arms of the husband being placed on the
dexter side of the escutcheon, and the whole design of the wife's arms
being placed on the sinister side (Fig. 742).
[Illustration: FIG. 745.]
It may perhaps be as well to here exemplify the different methods of the
conjunction of the arms of man and wife, arranging the same two coats in
the different methods in which they might be marshalled before reverting to
ancient practices.
[Illustration: FIG. 746.]
An ordinary commoner impales his wife's arms as in Fig. 742. If she be an
heiress, he places them on an escutcheon of pretence as in Fig. 743. If the
husband, not being a Knight, is, however, a Companion of an Order of
Knighthood, this does not (except in the case of the Commanders of the
Victorian Order) give him the right to use the circle of his Order round
his arms, and his badge is simply hung below the escutcheon, the arms of
the wife being impaled or placed on an escutcheon of pretence thereupon as
the case may necessitate. The wife of a Knight Bachelor shares the state
and rank with her husband, and the only difference is in the helmet (Fig.
744). But if the husband be a knight of any order, the ensigns of that
order are personal to himself, and cannot be shared with his wife, and
consequently two shields are employed. On the dexter shield are the arms of
the husband with the circle of his order of knighthood, and on the sinister
shield are the arms of the husband impaling the arms of the wife. Some
meaningless decoration, usually a wreath of oak-leaves, is placed round the
sinister shield to "balance," from the artistic point, the {532} ribbon, or
the ribbon and collar, as the case may be, of the order of knighthood of
the husband (Fig. 745). A seeming exception to this rule in the case of the
recent warrant to Queen Alexandra, whose arms, impaled by those of His
Majesty, are depicted impaled within the Garter, is perhaps explained by
the fact that Her Majesty is herself a member of that Order. A Knight Grand
Cross, of course, adds his collar to the dexter shield, and if he has
supporters, these are placed outside the _two_ shields.
A peer impales the arms of his wife as in the case of a commoner, the arms
of the wife being, of course, under the protection of the supporters,
coronet, and helmet of the peer (Fig. 746). If, in addition to being a
peer, he is also a knight of an order, he follows the rules which prescribe
the use of two shields as already described.
[Illustration: FIG. 747.]
[Illustration: FIG. 748.]
Supposing the wife to be a peeress in her own right, she cannot nowadays
confer any rank whatever upon her husband; consequently, if she marry a
commoner, the husband places her arms upon an escutcheon of pretence
surmounted by a coronet of her rank, but the supporters belonging to her
peerage cannot be added to his shield. The arms of the wife are
consequently repeated alone, but in this case upon a lozenge on the
sinister side of the husband's shield. Above this lozenge is placed the
coronet of her rank, and the supporters belonging to her peerage are placed
on either side of the lozenge (Fig. 747). But the arms of a peeress in her
own right are frequently represented on a lozenge without any reference to
the arms of her husband. In the case of a peeress in her own right marrying
a peer, the arms of the peeress are placed upon an escutcheon of pretence
in the centre of {533} her husband's shield, the only difference being that
this escutcheon of pretence is surmounted by the coronet belonging to the
peerage of the wife; and on the sinister side the arms of the wife are
repeated upon a lozenge with the supporters and coronet belonging to her
own peerage. It is purely an artistic detail, but it is a happy conceit in
such an instance to join together the compartments upon which the two pairs
of supporters stand to emphasise the fact that the whole is in reality but
one achievement (Fig. 748).
[Illustration: FIG. 749.]
Now, it is not uncommon to see an achievement displayed in this manner, for
there have been several instances in recent years of peeresses in their own
right who have married peers. Every woman who _inherits_ a peerage must of
necessity be an heir or coheir, and, as will have been seen, the laws of
armory provide for this circumstance; but supposing that the peeress were a
peeress by creation and were not an heiress, how would her arms be
displayed? Apparently it would not be permissible to place them on an
escutcheon of pretence, and consequently there is no way upon the husband's
shield of showing that his wife is a peeress in her own right. Such an
instance did arise in the case of the late Baroness Stratheden, who was
created a peeress whilst not being an heiress. Her husband was subsequently
created Baron Campbell. Now, how were the arms of Lord Campbell and Lady
Stratheden and Campbell displayed? I think I am correct in saying that not
a single textbook on armory recites the method which should be employed,
and I candidly confess that I myself am quite ignorant upon the point.
[Illustration: FIG. 750.]
All the foregoing are simply instances of how to display the arms of man
and wife, or, to speak more correctly, they are instances of the methods
_in which a man should bear arms for himself and his wife when he is
married_; for the helmet and mantling clearly indicate that it is the man's
coat of arms, and not the woman's. In olden days, when the husband
possessed everything, this might have been enough for all the circumstances
which were likely to occur.
A lady whilst unmarried bears arms on a lozenge (Fig. 749), and upon
becoming a widow, bears again upon a lozenge the arms of her husband
impaled with the arms borne by her father (Fig. 750), or with the latter
upon an escutcheon of pretence if the widow be herself an {534} heiress
(Fig. 751). The widow of a knight has no way whatever of indicating that
her husband was of higher rank than an ordinary untitled gentleman. The
widow of a baronet, however, places the inescutcheon with the hand of
Ulster upon her husband's arms (Fig. 752). I have often heard this
disputed, but a reference to the Grant Books at the College of Arms (_vide_
a grant of arms some years ago to Lady Pearce) will provide the necessary
precedent. If, however, the baronetcy is of Nova Scotia, this means of
indicating the rank cannot be employed. The widow of a peer (not being a
peeress in her own right) uses a lozenge of her husband's and her own arms,
with his supporters and his coronet (Fig. 753).
[Illustration: FIG. 751.]
[Illustration: FIG. 752.]
If a peeress, after marriage with a commoner, becomes a widow she bears on
the dexter side a lozenge of her late husband's arms and superimposed
thereupon her own on an escutcheon of pretence surmounted by a coronet.
(The coronet, it should be noted, is over the escutcheon of pretence and
not above the lozenge.) On the sinister side she bears a lozenge of her own
arms alone with her supporters and with her coronet above the lozenge. The
arms of the present Baroness Kinloss would show an example of such an
arrangement of two lozenges, but as Lady Kinloss does not possess
supporters these additions could not be introduced.
[Illustration: FIG. 753.]
The laws of arms provide no way in which a married woman (other than a
peeress in her own right) can display arms in her own right during the
lifetime of her husband, unless this is to be presumed from the method of
depicting the arms of a wife upon a hatchment. In such a case, a _shield_
is used, usually suspended from a ribbon, identical with the shield of the
husband, but omitting the helmet, crest, mantling, and motto.
Impalement is used occasionally in other circumstances than marriage,
_i.e._ to effect conjunction of official and personal arms.
With rare exceptions, the official arms which exist are those of
Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees, of the Kings of Arms, and of the {535}
Regius Professors at Cambridge. Here certainly, in the ecclesiastical
cases, the theory of marriage remains, the official arms being placed on
the dexter side and the personal arms on the sinister, inasmuch as the laws
of armory for ecclesiastics were made at a time when the clergy were
celibate. The personal helmet and crest are placed above the impaled coat,
except in the cases of bishops and archbishops, who, of course, use a mitre
in place thereof. It is not correct to impale the arms of a wife upon the
same shield which carries the impalement of an official coat of arms,
because the wife does not share the office. In such a case it is necessary
to make use of two shields placed side by side, as is done in conjoining
the arms of a Knight of any Order with those of his wife.
In impaling the arms of a wife, it is not correct to impale more than her
pronominal coat. This is a definite rule in England, somewhat modified in
Scotland, as will be presently explained. Though it has never been
considered good form to impale a quartered shield, it is only recently that
the real fact that such a proceeding is definitely incorrect has come to
light. It appears from the State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz. xxvi. 31,
1561:--
"At a Chapitre holden by the office of Armes at the Embroyderers' Hall in
London, anno 4^o Reginæ Elizabethæ it was agreed that no inhiritrix eyther
mayde wife or widow should bear or cause to be borne any Creast or
cognizance of her Ancestors otherwise than as followeth. If she be
unmarried to bear in her ringe, cognizaunce or otherwise, the first coate
of her ancestors in a Lozenge. And during her widowhood to set the first
coate of her husbande in pale with the first coate of her Auncestors. And
if she mary on who is noe gentleman, then she to be clearly exempted from
the former conclusion."
Whilst this rule holds in England, it must, to a certain extent, be
modified in relation to the arms of a Scottish wife. Whilst the inalienable
right _to quarter arms derived_ from an heiress cannot be said to be
non-existent in Scotland, it should be noted that the custom of
indiscriminately quartering is much less frequent than in England, and
comparatively seldom adopted, unless estates, or chief representation in an
important or appreciable degree, follow the technical heraldic
representation. In England the claim is always preferred to quarter the
arms of an ancestress who had no brothers whether she transmitted estates
or not. Of course, technically and theoretically the claim is perfectly
correct, and cannot, and should not, be denied. But in practice in England
it has in some cases reached a rather absurd extent, when a man on marrying
an only daughter of the youngest son of the youngest branch of a family
consequently acquires the right to display with his own ensigns the full
arms and quarterings of {536} the head of a house from which he has
inherited no lands, and which is still thriving in the senior male line. In
Scottish practice such an event would be ignored, and in that country it is
not usual to add quarterings to a shield, _nor are these officially
recognised_ without a rematriculation of the arms. In England it is merely
a question of recording the pedigree and proving heirship, and many
quarterings are proved and recorded that there is not the slightest
intention to use regularly. Rematriculation has a more permanent character
than mere registration, inasmuch as the coat with its quarterings upon
matriculation as far as usage is concerned becomes indivisible, and,
consequently, for a Scottish wife the impalement should be of the
indivisible arms and quarterings matriculated to her father in Lyon
Register, with his bordure and other "difference" marks.
All the old armorists provide ways of impaling the arms of several wives,
and consequently the idea has grown up that it is permissible and correct
to bear and use the arms of two wives at the same time. This is a mistake,
because, strictly and technically speaking, the right to impale the arms of
a wife ceases at her death. Impalement means marriage, and when the
marriage is dissolved the impalement becomes meaningless, and should be
discontinued. A man cannot be married to two people at one time, nor can he
as a consequence impale two coats of arms at the same time.
The matter is more clearly apparent if the question of an escutcheon of
pretence be considered in place of an impalement. The escutcheon of
pretence means that the husband _pretends_ to represent the family of his
wife. This _jure uxoris_ he undoubtedly does whilst she is alive, but the
moment she dies the _actual_ representation of her family passes to her son
and heir, and it is ridiculous for her husband to _pretend_ to represent
when there is an undoubted representative in existence, and when the
representation, such as it was when vested in himself, has come to an end,
and passed elsewhere. If his heiress-wife had been a peeress, he would have
borne her escutcheon of pretence surmounted by her coronet; but it is
ridiculous for him to continue to do so when the right to the coronet and
to the peerage has passed to his wife's heir. The same argument holds good
with regard to impalement. That, of course, raises the point that in every
authority (particularly in those of an earlier period) will be found
details of the methods to be adopted for impaling the arms of several
wives. People have quite failed to appreciate the object of these rules.
Armory from its earliest introduction has had great memorial use, and when
a monument or hatchment is put up to a man it has been usual, prior to
these utilitarian days of funeral reform, to memorialise _all_ the wives he
has been possessed of. In the same way, in a pedigree it is necessary to
{537} enumerate the names and arms of all the wives of a man. Consequently
for tombs and pedigrees--when all being dead, there is no reason to
indicate any particular woman as the present _wife_--plans have been
devised for the combination of several coats into one memorial achievement,
plans necessitated by the circumstances of the cases, and plans to which no
objection can be taken. Tombs, pedigrees, and other memorials are the usual
form in which the records of arms have chiefly come down to us, and from
the frequency in which cases of achievements with double impalements have
been preserved, a mistaken idea has arisen that it is correct to bear, and
actually use and carry, two impalements at one and the same time. Outside
memorial instances, I have utterly failed to find any instance in former
days of a man himself using in his own lifetime two impalements, and I
believe and state it to be absolutely incorrect for a man to use, say on a
carriage, a bookplate, or a seal, the arms of a deceased wife. You may
_have been_ married to a presently deceased woman, therefore impale her
arms in a record or memorial; but no one _is_ married to a deceased woman,
therefore it is wrong to advertise that you are married to her by impaling
her arms; and as you cannot be married to two people at the same time, it
is illogical and wrong to _use_ or carry two impalements. I know of no
instance of a grant to a man of arms to bear in right of a deceased wife.
It is for these occasions of memorial and record that methods have been
devised to show a man's marriage with several wives. They certainly were
not devised for the purpose of enabling him to bear and use for
contemporary purposes the arms of a series of dead women, the
representation of whom is no longer vested in himself.
Whilst admitting that for the purposes of record or memorial rules _do_
exist, it should at the same time be pointed out that even for such
occasions it is much more usual to see two shields displayed, each carrying
its separate impalement, than to find two impalements on one shield. The
use of a separate shield for each marriage is the method that I would
strongly advocate, but as a knowledge of past observances must be had
fully, if one is to read aright the records of the tombs, I recite what the
rules are:--
(1) _To impale the arms of two wives._--Either the husband's arms are
placed in the centre, with the first wife on the dexter and the second wife
on the sinister, or else the husband's arms are placed on the dexter side,
and the sinister side is divided in fess, the arms of the first wife being
placed in chief and those of the second in base. The former method is the
one more generally employed of the two.
(2) _Three wives._--Husband's arms in centre, first wife's on dexter side,
second wife's on sinister side in chief, and third wife in base. {538}
(3) _Four wives._--Husband's in centre, first and second wives' in chief
and base respectively on the dexter side, and third and fourth similarly on
the sinister.
If one of two wives be an heiress her arms might be found in pretence and
the other coat or coats impaled, but it is impossible in such a case to
place a number to the wife, and it is impossible to display an escutcheon
of pretence for more than one wife, as if the escutcheon of pretence is
removed from the exact centre it at once ceases to be an escutcheon of
pretence. Consequently, if more than one wife be an heiress, separate
escutcheons should be used for each marriage. Plans have been drawn up and
apparently accepted providing for wives up to nearly twenty in number, but
no useful purpose will be served by repeating them. A man with more than
four wives is unusual in this country.
Divorce nullifies marriage, and both husband and wife must at once revert
to bachelor and maiden achievements respectively.
It is difficult to deduce any certain conclusions as to the ancient rules
connected with impalement, for a simple reason which becomes very
noticeable on an examination of ancient _seals_ and other armorial records.
In early times there can be no doubt whatever that men did not impale, or
bother about the arms of wives who were not great heiresses. A man bore his
own arms, and he left his father-in-law, or his brother-in-law, to bear
those of the family with which he had matched. Of course, we find many
cases in which the arms of a wife figure upon the husband's shield, but a
careful examination of them shows that in practically every case the reason
is to be found in the fact that the wife was an heiress. Husbands were
called to Parliament in virtue of the peerages vested in their wives, and
we cannot but come to the conclusion that whenever one finds use in early
times of the arms of a wife, it is due to the fact that the husband was
bearing them not because of his mere marriage, but because he was enjoying
the estates, or peerage, of his wife.
For that reason we find in many cases the arms of the wife borne in
preference to the paternal arms of descent, or meet with them quartered
with the arms of the husband, and frequently being given precedence over
his own; and on the analogy of the coats of arms of wives at present borne
with the wife's surname by the husband under Royal Licence, there can be
little doubt that at a period when Royal Licences had not come into regular
vogue the same idea was dominant, and the appearance of a wife's coat of
arms meant the assumption of those arms by the husband as his own, with or
without the surname of the wife.
The connection between name and arms was not then so stereotyped as it is
at present; rather was it a connection between arms and {539} land, and
perhaps more pointedly of arms and a peerage title where this existed, for
there are many points and many facts which conclusively show that at an
early period a coat of arms was often considered to have a territorial
limitation; or perhaps it should be said that, whilst admittedly personal,
arms have territorial attributes or connection.
This is borne out by the pleadings and details remaining to us concerning
the Grey and Hastings controversy, and if this territorial character of a
coat of arms is admitted, together with another characteristic no less
important--and certainly equally accepted--that a coat of arms could belong
to but one person at the same time, it must be recognised that the
appearance of a wife's arms on a husband's shield is not an instance of a
sign of mere marriage or anything analogous thereto. But when we turn to
the arms of women, the condition of affairs is wholly reversed. A woman,
who of course retained her identity, drew her position from her marriage
and from her husband's position, and from the very earliest period we find
that whilst a man simply bore his own arms, the wife upon her seal
displayed both the arms of her own family and the arms of her husband's.
Until a much later period it cannot be said to have been ordinarily
customary for the husband to bear the arms of his wife unless she were an
heiress, but from almost the beginning of armory the wife conjoined the
arms of her husband and herself. But the instances which have come down to
us from an early period of dimidiated or impaled coats are chiefly
instances of the display of arms by a widow.
The methods of conjunction which can be classed as above, however, at first
seem to have been rather varied.
Originally separate shields were employed for the different coats of arms,
then dimidiated examples occur; at a later period we find the arms impaled
upon one shield, and at a subsequent date the escutcheon of pretence comes
into use as a means of indicating that the wife was an heiress.
The origin of this escutcheon is easy to understand. Taking arms to have a
territorial limitation--a point which still finds a certain amount of
acceptance in Scottish heraldry--there was no doubt that a man, in
succeeding to a lordship in right of his wife, would wish to bear the arms
associated therewith. He placed them, therefore, upon his own, and arms
exclusively of a territorial character have certainly very frequently been
placed "in pretence." His own arms he would look upon as arms of descent;
they consequently occupied the field of his shield. The lordship of his
wife he did not enjoy through descent, and consequently he would naturally
incline to place it "in pretence," and from the constant occasions in which
such a proceeding would seem to be the natural course of events (all of
which occasions {540} would be associated with an heiress-wife), one would
be led to the conclusion that such a form of display indicated an
heiress-wife; and consequently the rule deduced, as are all heraldic rules,
from past precedents became established.
In the next generation, the son and heir would have descent from his mother
equally with his father, and the arms of her family would be equally arms
of descent to him, and no longer the mere territorial emblem of a lordship.
Consequently they became on the same footing as the arms of his father. The
son would naturally, therefore, quarter the arms. The escutcheon of
pretence being removed, and therefore having enjoyed but a temporary
existence, the association thereof with the heiress-wife becomes emphasised
in a much greater degree.
This is now accepted as a definite rule of armory, but in reciting it as a
rule it should be pointed out, first, that no man may place the arms of his
wife upon an escutcheon of pretence during the lifetime of her father,
because whilst her father is alive there is always the opportunity of a
re-marriage, and of the consequent birth of a son and heir. No man is
compelled to bear arms on an escutcheon of pretence, it being quite correct
to impale them merely to indicate the marriage--if he so desires. There are
many cases of arms which would appear meaningless and undecipherable when
surmounted by an escutcheon of pretence.
"Sometimes, also (says Guillim), he who marries an heretrix may carry her
arms in an inescutcheon upon his own, because the husband pretends that his
heirs shall one day inherit an estate by her; it is therefore called an
escutcheon of pretence; but this way of bearing is not known abroad upon
that occasion."
A man on marrying an heiress-wife has no great space at his disposal for
the display of her arms, and though it is now considered perfectly correct
to place any number of quarterings upon an escutcheon of pretence, the
opportunity does not in fact exist for more than the display of a limited
number. In practice, three or four are as many as will usually be found,
but theoretically it is correct to place the whole of the quarterings to
which the wife is entitled upon the escutcheon of pretence.
Two early English instances may be pointed out in the fifteenth century, in
which a husband placed his wife's arms _en surtout_. These are taken from
the Garter Plates of Sir John Neville, Lord Montagu, afterwards Marquess of
Montagu (elected K.G. _circa_ 1463), and of Richard Beauchamp, fifth Earl
of Warwick and Albemarle (elected K.G. _circa_ 1400); but it was not until
about the beginning of the seventeenth century that the regular practice
arose by which the husband of an heiress places his wife's arms in an
escutcheon _en surtout_ {541} upon his personal arms, whether his coat be a
quartered one or not. Another early instance is to be found in Fig. 754,
which is interesting as showing the arms of both wives of the first Earl of
Shrewsbury. His first was _suo jure_ Baroness Furnivall. Her arms are,
however, impaled. His second wife was the daughter (but not the heir) of
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, but she was coheir of her mother, the
Baroness Lisle.
[Illustration]
FIG. 754.--Arms of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, K.G.: Quarterly, 1
and 4, gules, a lion rampant within a bordure engrailed or (Talbot); 2
and 3, argent, two lions passant in pale gules (Strange); impaling the
arms of his first wife whose Peerage he enjoyed, viz.: quarterly, 1 and
4, argent, a bend between six martlets gules (Furnival); 2 and 3, or, a
fret gules (Verdon); and upon an escutcheon of pretence the arms of the
mother of his second wife (to whom she was coheir, conveying her
mother's Peerage to her son), viz.: 1 and 4, gules, a lion passant
guardant argent, crowned or (Lisle); 2 and 3, argent, a chevron gules
(Tyes). (From MS. Reg. 15, E. vi.)
It should be borne in mind that even in Great Britain an inescutcheon _en
surtout_ does not always mean an heiress-wife. The Earl of Mar and Kellie
bears an inescutcheon surmounted by an earl's coronet for his Earldom of
Kellie, and other instances are to be found in the arms of Cumming-Gordon
(see Plate III.), whilst Sir Hector Maclean Hay, Bart., thus bears his
pronominal arms over his quarterings in continental fashion. Inescutcheons
of augmentation occur in the arms of the Dukes of Marlborough and
Wellington, Lord Newton, and on the shields of Newman, Wolfe, and others.
Under the Commonwealth the Great Seals of Oliver Cromwell and his son
Richard, as Protectors, bore a shield of arms: "Quarterly, 1 and 4, argent,
a cross gules (for England); 2. azure, a saltire argent (for Scotland); 3.
azure, a harp or, stringed argent (for Ireland);" and upon these
quarterings _en surtout_ an escutcheon of the personal arms of Cromwell:
"Sable, a lion rampant argent."
In the heraldry of the Continent of Europe it has long been the custom for
an elected sovereign to place his hereditary arms in an escutcheon _en
surtout_ above those of his dominions. As having obtained the crown by
popular election, the Kings of the Hellenes also place _en surtout_ upon
the arms of the Greek kingdom ("Azure, a Greek cross couped argent") an
escutcheon of their personal arms. Another instance is to be found in the
arms of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Whilst all the descendants of
the late Prince Consort (other than his Majesty King Edward VII.) bear in
England the Royal Arms of this country, differenced by their respective
labels with an escutcheon of Saxony _en surtout_ as Dukes and Duchesses of
Saxony, the late Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha bore {542} the arms of
Saxony, placing the differenced Royal shield of this country _en surtout_.
We now come to the subject of quartering. Considering the fact that every
single text-book on armory gives the ordinary rules for the marshalling of
quarterings, it is strange how many mistakes are made, and how extremely
funny are the ideas of some people upon the subject of quartering. As has
already been stated, the rules of quartering are governed by the simple,
but essential and important fact, that every quartering exhibited means the
representation in blood of some particular person. Quarterings, other than
those of augmentation, can only be inherited from or through those female
ancestors who are in themselves heirs or coheirs in blood, or whose issue
subsequently become in a later generation the representatives of any
ancestor in the male line of that said female ancestor. Briefly speaking, a
woman is an heiress, first, if she is only child; second, if all her
brothers die without issue in her own lifetime; and third, if the entire
issue, male and female, of her brothers, becomes extinct in her own
lifetime. A woman becomes an "heiress in her issue," as it is termed, if
she die before her brothers, if and when all the descendants of her
brothers become absolutely extinct.
If the wife be either an heir or coheir, she transmits after her death to
_all_ her children the arms and quarterings--_as quarterings to add to
their paternal arms, and as such only_--which she was entitled to place
upon her own lozenge.
The origin and theory of quartering is as follows: If the daughter be an
heiress or coheiress she represents either wholly or in part her father and
his branch of the family, even if "his branch" only commenced with himself.
Now in the days when the science of armory was slowly evolving itself there
was no Married Women's Property Act, and the husband _ipso facto_ became to
all intents and purposes possessed of and enjoyed the rights of his wife.
But it was at the same time only a possession and enjoyment by courtesy,
and not an actual possession in fee, for the reversion remained with the
wife's heirs, and did not pass to the heirs of the husband; for in cases
where the husband or wife had been previously married, or where there was
no issue of their marriage, their heirs would not be identical. Of course
during the lifetime of his wife he could not actually _represent_ his
wife's family, and consequently could not quarter the arms, but in right of
his wife he "pretended" to the representation of her house, and
consequently the inescutcheon of her arms is termed an "escutcheon of
pretence."
After the death of a wife her children immediately and actually become the
representatives of their mother, and are as such _entitled_ of right to
quarter the arms of their mother's family. {543}
The earliest example which has been discovered at the present time of the
use of a quartered coat of arms is afforded by the seal of Joanna of
Ponthieu, second wife of Ferdinand III., King of Castile and Leon, in 1272.
This seal bears on its reverse in a vesica the triple-towered castles of
Castile, and the rampant lion of Leon, repeated as in the modern
quarterings of Spain. There is, however, no separation of the quarters by a
line of partition. This peculiarity will be also noticed as existing in the
quartered coats of Hainault a quarter of a century later. The quartered
coat of Castile and Leon remains upon the monument in Westminster Abbey
erected in memory of Eleanor of Castile, who died in 1290, the first wife
of Edward I.
Providing the wife be an heiress--and for the remainder of this chapter,
which deals only with quarterings, this will be assumed--the son of a
marriage _after the death_ of his mother quarters her arms with those of
his father, that is, he divides his shield into four quarters, and places
the arms of his father in the first and fourth quarters, and the arms of
his mother in the second and third. That is the root, basis, and original
rule of all the rules of quartering, but it may be here remarked, that no
man is entitled to quarter the arms of his mother whilst she is alive,
inasmuch as she is alive to represent herself and her family, and her issue
cannot assume the representation whilst she is alive.
[Illustration]
FIG. 755.--Arms of Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby (d. 1572); Quarterly,
1. quarterly, i. and iiii., argent, on a bend azure, three bucks' heads
caboshed or (Stanley); ii. and iii., or, on a chief indented azure,
three bezants (Lathom); 2 and 3, gules, three legs in armour conjoined
at the thigh and flexed at the knee proper, garnished and spurred or
(for the Lordship of Man); 4. quarterly, i. and iiii., gules, two lions
passant in pale argent (for Strange); ii. and iii., argent, a fess and
a canton gules (for Wydeville). The arms on the escutcheon of pretence
are not those of his wife (Anne Hastings), who was not an heiress, and
they seem difficult to account for unless they are a coat for Rivers or
some other territorial lordship inherited from the Wydeville family.
The full identification of the quarterings borne by Anthony, Lord
Rivers, would probably help in determining the point.
But it should not be imagined that the definite rules which exist at the
moment had any such unalterable character in early times. Husbands are
found to have quartered the arms of their wives if they were heiresses, and
if important lordships devolved through the marriage. Territorial arms of
dominion were quartered with personal arms (Fig. 755), quarterings of
augmentation were granted, and the present system is the endeavour to
reconcile all the varying circumstances and precedents which exist. One
point, however, stands out clearly from all ancient examples, viz. that
quartering meant quartering, and a shield was supposed to have but four
quarters upon it. Consequently we find that instead of the elaborate
schemes now in vogue showing {544} 10, 20, 50, or 100 quarterings, the
shield had but four; and this being admitted and recognised, it became
essential that the four most important should be shown, and consequently we
find that quarterings were selected in a manner which would seem to us
haphazard. Paternal quarterings were dropped and the result has been that
many coats of arms are now known as the arms of a family with quite a
different surname from that of the family with which they originated. The
matter was of little consequence in the days when the "upper-class" and
arms-bearing families were few in number. Every one knew how Stafford
derived his Royal descent, and that it was not male upon male, so no
confusion resulted from the Earls of Buckingham giving the Royal coat
precedence before their paternal quartering of Stafford (see Fig. 756), or
from their using only the Woodstock version of the Royal Arms; but as time
went on the upper classes became more numerous, arms-bearing ancestors by
the succession of generations increased in number, and while in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it would be a physical impossibility
for any man to have represented one hundred different heiresses of
arms-bearing families, in later days such became the case. The result has
been the necessity to formulate those strict and rigid rules which for
modern purposes must be conformed to, and it is futile and childish to
deduce a set of rules from ancient and possibly isolated examples
originating in and suitable for the simpler genealogical circumstances of
an earlier day, and assert that it is equally permissible to adopt them at
the moment, or to marshal a modern shield accordingly.
[Illustration]
FIG. 756.--Arms of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1521):
Quarterly, 1 and 4, quarterly, i. and iiii., France; ii. and iii.,
England, within the bordure argent of Thomas of Woodstock; 2 and 3, or,
a chevron gules (for Stafford). (From MS. Add. 22, 306.)
The first attempt to break away from the four quarters of a shield was the
initiation of the system of grand quarters (see Figs. 755 and 756). By this
means the relative importance could roughly be shown. Supposing a man had
inherited a shield of four quarters and then married a wife in whom was
vested a peerage, he naturally wished to display the arms connected with
that peerage, for these were of greater importance than his own four
quarterings. The problem was how to introduce the fifth. In some cases we
find it borne in pretence, but in other cases, particularly in a later
generation, we find that important quarter given the whole of a quarter of
the shield to itself, the other four being conjoined together and displayed
so as to occupy a similar space. These, therefore, became sub-quarters. The
system also had advantages, because it permitted coats which by constant
quartering had become {545} indivisible to be perpetuated in this form. So
definite was this rule, that in only one of the series of Garter plates
anterior to the Tudor period is any shield found containing more than four
quarters, though many of these are grand quarters containing other coats
borne sub-quarterly. The one instance which I refer to as an exception is
the shield of the Duke D'Urbino, and it is quite possible that this should
not be quoted as an instance in point. He appears to have borne in the
ordinary way four quarters, but he subsequently added thereto two
quarterings which may or may not have been one and the same coat of arms by
way of augmentation. These he placed in pale in the centre of the others,
thus making the shield apparently one of six quarters.
[Illustration]
FIG. 757.--Arms of George Nevill, Baron Abergavenny (d. 1535):
Quarterly, 1. gules, on a saltire argent, a rose of the field (Nevill);
2. chequy or and azure (Warenne); 3. or, three chevrons gules (Clare);
4. quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret
or, over all a bend sable (Le Despencer); 4. gules, on a fess between
six cross crosslets or, a crescent sable (for Beauchamp). (Add. MS. 22,
306.)
But one is safe in the assertion that during the Plantagenet period no more
than four quarters were ordinarily placed upon a shield. Then we come to
the brief period of "squeezed in" quarterings (Figs. 757 and 758). In the
early Visitations we get instances of six, eight, and even a larger number,
and the start once being made, and the number of four relinquished, there
was of course no reason why it should not be extended indefinitely. This
appears to have rapidly become the case, and we find that schemes of
quarterings are now proved and recorded officially in England and Ireland
some of which exceed 200 in number. The record number of officially proved
and recorded quarterings is at present held by the family of Lloyd, of
Stockton in Chirbury, co. Salop, but many of the quarterings of this family
are mere repetition owing to constant intermarriages, and to the fact that
a single Welsh line of male descent often results in a number of different
shields. Welsh arms did not originally have the hereditary unchangeability
we are accustomed to in English heraldry, and moreover a large proportion
are later inventions borne to denote descent and are not arms actually used
by those they stand for, so that the recorded scheme {546} of the
quarterings of Mr. Money-Kyrle, or of the sister Countesses of Yarborough
and Powis, respectively Baroness Fauconberg and Conyers and Baroness Darcy
de Knayth are decidedly more enviable. Nobody of course attempts to bear
such a number. In Scotland, however, even to the present day, the system of
four quarterings is still adhered to. The result is that in Scotland the
system of grand quarterings is still pursued, whilst in England it is
almost unknown, except in cases where coats of arms have for some reason or
another become indivisible. This is a very patent difficulty when it
becomes necessary to marshal indivisible Scottish coats with English ones,
and the system of cadency adopted in Scotland, which has its chief
characteristic in the employment of bordures, makes the matter sometimes
very far from simple. The system adopted at the present time in the case of
a Royal Licence, for example, to bear a Scottish name and arms where the
latter is a coat of many quarterings within a bordure, is to treat such
coat as made indivisible by and according to the most recent matriculation.
That coat is then treated as a grand quartering of an equivalent value to
the pronominal coat in England.
[Illustration]
FIG. 758.--Arms of Henry Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland (d.
1527): Quarterly, 1. quarterly, i. and iiii., or, a lion rampant azure
(Percy); ii. and iii., gules, three lucies haurient argent (Lucy); 2.
azure, five fusils conjoined in fess or (for Percy); 3. barry of six or
and vert, a bendlet gules (Poynings); 4. gules, three lions passant in
pale argent, a bendlet azure (FitzPayne), or three piles azure (Brian).
But reverting to the earlier chart, by the aid of which heirship was
demonstrated, the following were entitled to transmit the Cilfowyr arms as
quarterings. Mary, Ellen, Blanche, Grace, Muriel, and Dorothy all had the
right to transmit. By the death of Dorothy _v.p._ Alice and Annie both
became entitled. Maria Jane and Hannah would have been entitled to transmit
Sherwin and Cilfowyr, but not Cilfowyr alone, if there had been no arms for
Sherwin, though they could have transmitted Sherwin alone if there had been
arms for Sherwin and none for Cilfowyr. Harriet would have transmitted the
arms of Cilfowyr if she had survived, and Ada would, each subject to
differences as has been previously explained.
As has been already explained, every woman is entitled to bear upon a
lozenge in her own lifetime the arms, quarterings, and difference marks
which belonged to her father. If her mother were an heiress she adds her
mother's arms to her father's, and her mother's quarterings also,
marshalling the whole into a correct sequence, and placing the said
sequence of quarterings upon a lozenge. Such are the armorial bearings of a
daughter. If the said daughter be not an heraldic heiress in blood she
_cannot_ transmit either arms or quarterings to her descendants. Needless
to say, no woman, heiress or non-heiress, can now transmit a crest, and no
woman can bear either crest, helmet, mantling, or motto. A daughter not
being an heiress simply confers the right upon her husband to _impale_ upon
his shield such arms and difference marks as her father bore in his own
right. If an heiress possessing arms marry a man with illegal arms, or a
man making no pretensions to arms, her children have no arms at all, and
really inherit {547} nothing; and the rights, such as they are, to the arms
of the mother as a quartering remain, and must remain, _dormant_ unless and
until arms are established for their father's line, inasmuch as they can
only inherit armorially from their mother _through_ their father. In
England it is always optional for a man to have arms assigned to him to
fill in any blanks which would otherwise mar his scheme of quarterings.
Let us now see how various coats of arms are marshalled as quarterings into
one achievement.
[Illustration: FIG. 759.]
[Illustration: FIG. 760.]
[Illustration: FIG. 761.]
The original theory of quartering upon which all rules are based is that
after a marriage with an heiress, necessitating for the children the
combination of the two coats, the shield is divided into four quarters.
These four are numbered from the top left-hand (the dexter) corner (No. 1)
across towards the sinister (No. 2) side of the shield; then the next row
is numbered in the same way (Nos. 3 and 4). This rule as to the method of
numbering holds good for any number of quarterings.
In allocating the position of the different coats to their places in the
scheme of quarterings, the pronominal coat must _always_ be in the first
quartering.
In a simple case (the exceptions will presently be referred to) that places
the arms of the father in the first and fourth quarters, and the arms of
the mother in the second and third; such, of course, being on the
assumption that the father possessed only a simple coat without
quarterings, and that the mother was in the same position. The children
therefore possess a coat of four quarters (Fig. 759). Suppose a son of
theirs in his turn marries another heiress, also possessing only a simple
coat without quarterings, he bears arms as Fig. 760, and the grandchildren
descending from the aforesaid marriage put that last-mentioned coat in the
third quarter, and the coat, though still of only four quarters, is: 1 and
4, the pronominal coat; 2, the first heiress; 3, the second (Fig. 761).
If another single quartering is brought in, in a later generation, that
takes the place of No. 4. So far it is all plain sailing, but very {548}
few text-books carry one beyond this point. Another single quartering
inherited gives five quarterings to be displayed on one shield. The usual
plan is to repeat the first quartering, and gives you six, which are then
arranged in two rows of three. If the shield be an impaled shield one
sometimes sees them arranged in three rows of two, but this is unusual
though not incorrect. But five quarterings are sometimes arranged in two
rows, three in the upper and two in the lower, and with a shield of the
long pointed variety this plan may be adopted with advantage. Subsequent
quarterings, as they are introduced by subsequent marriages, take their
places, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on _ad infinitum_.
In arranging them on one shield, the order in which they devolve (according
to the _pedigree_ and _not_ necessarily according to the _date_ order in
which they are inherited) must be rigidly adhered to; but a person is
perfectly at liberty (1) to repeat the _first_ quartering at the end to
make an even number or not at his pleasure, but no more than the first
quartering must be repeated in such cases; (2) to arrange the quarters in
any number of rows he may find most convenient according to the shape of
the space the quarterings will occupy.
Upon the Continent it is usual to specify the number and position of the
lines by which the shield is divided. Thus, while an English herald would
say simply, _Quarterly of six_, and leave it to the painter's or engraver's
taste to arrange the quarterings in three rows of two, or in two rows of
three, a French or German herald would ordinarily specify the arrangement
to be used in distinct terms.
If a man possessing only a simple coat of arms without quarterings marry an
heiress with a number of quarterings (_e.g._ say twenty), he himself places
the arms and quarterings of his wife in pretence. Their children
eventually, as a consequence, inherit twenty-one quarterings. The first is
the coat of their father, the second is the first coat of the mother, and
the remaining nineteen follow in a regular sequence, according to their
position upon their mother's achievement.
To sum the rule up, it is necessary first to take _all_ the quarterings
inherited from the father and arrange them in a proper sequence, and then
follow on _in the same sequence_ with the arms and quarterings inherited
from the mother.
The foregoing explanations should show how generation by generation
quarterings are added to a paternal shield, but I have found that many of
those who possess a knowledge of the laws to this extent are yet at a loss,
given a pedigree, to marshal the resulting quarterings in their right
order.
Given your pedigree--the first quartering _must_ be _the pronominal coat_
(I am here presuming no change of name or arms has occurred), which is the
coat of the strict male line of descent. Then follow this male line back as
far as it is known. The second quartering is the {549} coat of the _first_
heiress who married your earliest ancestor in the male line who is known to
have married an heiress. Then after her coat will follow all the
quarterings which she was entitled to and which she has "brought in" to
your family. Having exhausted these, you then follow your male line _down_
to the next heiress, adding her arms as a quartering to those already
arranged, and following it by her quarterings. The same plan must be
pursued until you arrive at your own name upon the pedigree. Unless some
exceptional circumstance has arisen (and such exceptions will presently be
found detailed at length), all the quarterings are of equal heraldic value,
and must be the same size when displayed.
If after having worked out your quarterings you find that you have more
than you care to use, you are quite at liberty to make a selection,
omitting any number, _but_ it is entirely _wrong_ to display quarterings
without those quarterings which brought them into the paternal line.
Supposing your name to be Brown, you _must_ put the Brown arms in the first
quarter, but at your pleasure you can quarter the arms of each single
heiress who married an ancestor of yours in the male line (_i.e._ who
herself became Mrs. Brown), or you can omit the whole or a part. But
supposing one of these, Mrs. Brown (_née_ Smith), was entitled to quarter
the arms of Jones, which arms of Jones had brought in the arms of Robinson,
you are not at liberty to quarter the arms of Jones without quartering
Smith, and if you wish to display the arms of Robinson you _must_ also
quarter the arms of Jones to bring in Robinson and the arms of Smith to
bring in Robinson and Jones to your own Brown achievement. You can use
Brown only: or quarterly, 1 and 4, Brown; 2 and 3, Smith: or 1 and 4,
Brown; 2. Smith; 3. Jones: or quarterly, 1. Brown; 2. Smith; 3. Jones; 4.
Robinson; but you are _not_ entitled to quarter: 1 and 4, Brown; 2. Jones;
3. Robinson, because Smith, which brought in Jones and Robinson, has been
omitted, and there was never a match between Brown and Jones.
Quarterings signifying nothing beyond mere representation are not
compulsory, and their use or disuse is quite optional.
So much for the general rules of quartering. Let us now consider certain
cases which require rules to themselves.
It is possible for a daughter to be the sole heir or coheir of her mother
whilst not being the heir of her father, as in the following imaginary
pedigree:--
_1st wife_
(an heiress). _2nd wife._
MARY CONYERS=JOHN DARCY=MARGARET FAUCONBERG.
| |
------------- --------------
| | |
JOAN (only daughter), THOMAS. HENRY.
heir of her mother
but not of her father.
{550} In this case Joan is not the heir of her father, inasmuch as he has
sons Thomas and Henry, but she is the heir of her mother and the only issue
capable of inheriting and transmitting the Conyers arms and quarterings.
Joan is heir of her mother but not of her father.
The husband of Joan can either impale the arms of Darcy as having married a
daughter of John Darcy, or he can place upon an escutcheon of pretence arms
to indicate that he has married the heiress of Conyers. But it would be
quite incorrect for him to simply place Conyers in pretence, because he has
not married a Miss Conyers. What he must do is to charge the arms of
Conyers with a dexter canton of the arms of Darcy and place this upon his
escutcheon of pretence.[30] The children will quarter the arms of Conyers
with the canton of Darcy and inherit likewise all the quarterings to which
Mary Conyers succeeded, but the Conyers arms must be always thereafter
charged with the arms of Darcy on a canton, and no right accrues to the
Darcy quarterings.
The following curious, but quite genuine case, which was pointed out to me
by the late Ulster King of Arms, presents a set of circumstances absolutely
unique, and it still remains to be decided what is the correct method to
adopt:--
_1st wife._ _2nd wife._
Lady MARY, dau. and = WILLIAM ST. LAWRENCE, = MARGARET, dau. of
coheir of Thomas | 2nd Earl of Howth. | William Burke.
Bermingham, Earl | |
of Louth. Married | |
1777, died 1793. | ----------------------
| | |
| THOMAS ST. LAWRENCE, |
----------------------- 3rd Earl of Howth. |
| | | | Other issue.
| Three other daughters
| and coheirs of their
| mother.
|
Lady ISABELLA ST. LAWRENCE, = WILLIAM RICHARD ANNESLEY, = PRISCILLA,
2nd dau. and coheir of her | 3rd Earl of Annesley. | 2nd dau. of
mother, but not heir of her | | Hugh Moore.
father, therefore entitled | |
to transmit the arms of | |
Bermingham with those of | -------------------
St. Lawrence on a canton. | | |
First wife of Earl | WILLIAM, 4th Earl HUGH, 5th Earl
Annesley. Married 1803, | of Annesley. of Annesley.
died 1827. |
------------
|
Lady MARY ANNESLEY, only child and = WILLIAM JOHN McGUIRE
sole heir of her mother and of Rostrevor.
coheir of her grandmother, but
not heir of her father or of her
grandfather. She is therefore
entitled to transmit the arms of
Bermingham with St. Lawrence on
a canton plus Annesley on a
canton. Married 1828.
How the arms of Bermingham are to be charged with both St. Lawrence and
Annesley remains to be seen. I believe Ulster favoured {551} two separate
cantons, dexter and sinister respectively, but the point did not come
before him officially, and I know of no official decision which affords a
precedent.
The reverse of the foregoing affords another curious point when a woman is
the heir of her father but not the heir of her mother:--
JOHN SMITH=MARY JONES.
|
_1st husband._ | _2nd husband._
JOHN WILLIAMS = ETHEL SMITH, = HENRY ROBERTS.
| only child |
| and heir. |
------------------- -------
| |
ALICE WILLIAMS, = ARTHUR ELLIS. EDWARD ROBERTS,
only child and | heir of his mother.
heir of John | |
Williams. | Issue.
|
THEODORE ELLIS,
who claims to quarter:
1 and 4, Ellis; 2. Williams; 3. Smith.
It is officially admitted (see the introduction to Burke's "General
Armory") that the claim is accurately made. The process of reasoning is
probably thus. John Williams places upon an escutcheon of pretence the arms
of Smith, and Alice Williams succeeds in her own right to the arms of her
mother because the latter was an heiress, and for herself is entitled to
bear, as would a son, the arms of the two parents quarterly; and having so
inherited, Alice Williams being herself an heiress, is entitled to
transmit. At any rate Arthur Ellis is entitled to impale or place upon his
escutcheon of pretence Williams and Smith quarterly. To admit the right for
the descendants to quarter the arms Arthur Ellis so bore is no more than a
logical progression, but the eventual result appears faulty, because we
find Theodore Ellis quartering the arms of Smith, whilst the representation
of Smith is in the line of Edward Roberts. This curious set of
circumstances, however, is rare in the extreme.
It frequently happens, in devising a scheme of quarterings, that a person
may represent heiresses of several families entitled to bear arms, but to
whom the pedigree must be traced through an heiress of another family which
did not possess arms. Consequently any claim to quarterings inherited
through the non-armorial heiress is dormant, and the quarterings must not
be used or inserted in any scheme drawn up. It is always permissible,
however, to petition for arms to be granted to be borne for that
non-armorial family for the purpose of introducing the quarterings in
question, and such a grant having been made, the dormant claim then becomes
operative and the new coat is introduced, followed by the dormant
quartering in precisely the same manner as would have been the case if the
arms granted had always existed. Grants of this character are constantly
being obtained. {552}
When a Royal Licence to assume or change name and arms is granted it very
considerably affects the question of quartering, and many varying
circumstances attending these Royal Licences make the matter somewhat
intricate. If the Royal Licence is to assume a name and arms in lieu of
those previously used, this means that for everyday use the arms are
_changed_, the right to the old arms lapsing except for the purpose of a
scheme of quarterings. The new coat of arms under the terms of the Royal
Licence, which requires it first "to be exemplified in our Royal College of
Arms, otherwise this our Royal Licence to be void and of none effect," is
always so exemplified, this exemplification being from the legal point of
view equivalent to a new grant of the arms to the person assuming them. The
terms of the Royal Licence have always carefully to be borne in mind,
particularly in the matter of remainder, because sometimes these
exemplifications are for a limited period or intended to devolve with
specified property, and a Royal Licence only nullifies a prior right to
arms to the extent of the terms recited in the Letters Patent of
exemplification. In the ordinary way, however, such an exemplification is
equivalent to a new grant affecting all the descendants. When it is assumed
in lieu, for the ordinary purpose of use the new coat of arms takes the
place of the old one, but the right to the old one remains in theory to a
certain extent, inasmuch as its existence _is necessary_ in any scheme of
quartering _to bring in_ any quarterings previously inherited, and these
cannot be displayed with the new coat unless they are preceded by the old
one. Quarterings, however, which are brought into the family through a
marriage in the generation in which the Royal Licence is obtained, or in a
subsequent generation, can be displayed with the new coat without the
interposition of the old one.
If the Royal Licence be to bear the name of a certain family in lieu of a
present name, and to bear the arms of that family quarterly with the arms
previously borne, the quarterly coat is then exemplified. In an English or
Irish Royal Licence the coat of arms for the name assumed is placed in the
first and the fourth quarters, and the old paternal arms figure in the
second and third. This is an invariable rule. The quarterly coat thus
exemplified becomes an indivisible coat for the new name, and it is not
permissible to subsequently divide these quarterings. They become as much
one coat of arms as "azure, a bend or" is the coat of arms of Scrope. If
this quarterly coat is to be introduced in any scheme of quarterings it
will only occupy the same space as any other single quartering and counts
only as one, though it of course is in reality a grand quartering. In
devising a scheme of quarterings for which a sub-quarterly coat of this
character exemplified under a Royal Licence is the pronominal coat, that
{553} quarterly coat is placed in the first quarter. Next to it is placed
the original coat of arms borne as the pronominal coat before the Royal
Licence and exemplified in the second and third sub-quarters of the first
quarter. When here repeated it occupies an entire quarter. Next to it are
placed the whole of the quarterings belonging to the family in the order in
which they occur. If the family whose name has been assumed is represented
through an heiress that coat of arms is also repeated in its proper
position and in that place in which it would have appeared if unaffected by
the Royal Licence. But if it be the coat of arms of a family from whom
there is no descent, or of whom there is no representation, the fact of the
Royal Licence does not give any further right to quarter it beyond its
appearance in the pronominal grand quartering. The exact state of the case
is perhaps best illustrated by the arms of Reid-Cuddon. The name of the
family was originally Reid, and representing an heiress of the Cuddons of
Shaddingfield Hall they obtained a Royal Licence to take the name and arms
of Cuddon in addition to the name and arms of Reid, becoming thereafter
Reid-Cuddon. The arms were exemplified in due course, and the achievement
then became: Quarterly, 1 and 4, Reid-Cuddon sub-quarterly, 2. the arms of
Reid, 3. the arms of Cuddon. In Scotland no such thing as a Royal Licence
exists, the matter being determined merely by a rematriculation following
upon a voluntary change of name. There is no specified order or position
for the arms of the different names, and the arrangement of the various
quarterings is left to be determined by the circumstances of the case. Thus
in the arms of Anstruther-Duncan the arms of Anstruther are in the first
quarter, and the matter is always largely governed by the importance of the
respective estates and the respective families. In England this is not the
case, because it is an unalterable rule that the arms of the last or
principal surname if there be two, or the arms of the one surname if that
be the case when the arms of two families are quartered, must always go in
the 1st and 4th quarters. If three names are assumed by Royal Licence, the
arms of the last name go in the 1st and 4th quarters, and the last name but
one in the second quarter, and of the first name in the third. These cases
are, however, rare. But no matter how many names are assumed, and no matter
how many original coats of arms the shield as exemplified consists of, it
thereafter becomes an indivisible coat.
When a Royal Licence is issued to an illegitimate person to bear the name
and arms of another family, no right is conferred to bear the quarterings
of that family even subject to difference marks. The Royal Licence is only
applicable to whatever arms were the pronominal coat used with the name
assumed. Though instances {554} certainly can be found in some of the
Visitation Books and other ancient records of a coat with quarterings, the
whole debruised by a bendlet sinister, notably in the case of a family of
Talbot, where eight quarters are so marked, the fact remains that this
practice has long been definitely considered incorrect, and is now never
permitted. If a Royal Licence is issued to an illegitimate woman the
exemplification is to herself personally, for in the eyes of the law she
has no relatives; and though she may be one of a large family, her
descendants are entitled to quarter the arms with the marks of distinction
exemplified to her because such quartering merely indicates the
representation of that one woman, who in the eyes of the law stands alone
and without relatives. In the case of a Royal Licence to take a name and
arms subject to these marks of distinction for illegitimacy, and in cases
where the arms to be assumed are a sub-quarterly coat, the mark of
distinction, which in England is now invariably a bordure wavy, will
surround both quarterings, which remain an indivisible coat.
If an augmentation is granted to a person whose pronominal coat is
sub-quarterly, that augmentation, whatever form it may assume, is
superimposed upon all quarterings. Thus a chief of augmentation would go
across the top of the shield, the four quarters being displayed below, and
the whole of this shield would be only one quartering in any scheme of
quartering. An inescutcheon is superimposed over all. If the augmentation
take the form of a quartering, then the pronominal coat is a grand
quartering, equivalent in size to the augmentation. If a person entitled to
a sub-quarterly coat and a double name obtains a Royal Licence to bear
another name and arms, and to bear the arms he has previously borne
quarterly with those he has assumed, the result would be: Quarterly, 1 and
4, the new coat assumed, quarterly 2 and 3, the arms he has previously
borne sub-quarterly. But it should be noticed that the arrangements of
coats of arms under a Royal Licence largely depends upon the wording of the
document by which authority is given by the Sovereign. The wording of the
document in its terms is based upon the wording of the petition, and within
reasonable limits any arrangement which is desired is usually permitted, so
that care should be taken as to the wording of the petition.
A quartering of augmentation is always placed in the first quarter of a
shield, but it becomes indivisible from and is depicted sub-quarterly with
the paternal arms; for instance, the Dukes of Westminster for the time
being, but not other members of the family, bear as an augmentation the
arms of the city of Westminster in the 1st and 4th quarters of his shield,
and the arms of Grosvenor in the 2nd and 3rd, but this coat of Westminster
and Grosvenor is an indivisible {555} quarterly coat which together would
only occupy the first quarter in a shield of quarterings. Then the second
one would be the arms of Grosvenor alone, which would be followed by the
quarterings previously inherited.
If under a Royal Licence a name is assumed and the Royal Licence makes no
reference to the arms of the family, the arms for all purposes remain
unchanged and as if no Royal Licence had ever been issued. If the Royal
Licence issued to a family simply exemplifies a single coat of arms, it is
quite wrong to introduce any other coat of arms to convert this single coat
into a sub-quarterly one.
To all intents and purposes it may be stated that in Scotland there are
still only four quarters in a shield, and if more than four coats are
introduced grand quarterings are employed. Grand quarterings are very
frequent in Scottish armory. The Scottish rules of quartering follow no
fixed principle, and the constant rematriculations make it impossible to
deduce exact rules; and though roughly approximating to the English ones,
no greater generalisation can be laid down than the assertion that the most
recent matriculation of an ancestor governs the arms and quarterings to be
displayed.
A royal quartering is never subdivided.
In combining Scottish and English coats of arms into one scheme of
quartering, it is usual if possible to treat the coat of arms as
matriculated in Scotland as a grand quartering equivalent in value to any
other of the English quarterings. This, however, is not always possible in
cases where the matriculation itself creates grand quarterings and
sub-quarterings; and for a scheme of quarterings in such a case it is more
usual for the Scottish matriculation to be divided up into its component
parts, and for these to be used as simple quarterings in succession to the
English ones, regardless of any bordure which may exist in the Scottish
matriculation. It cannot, of course, be said that such a practice is beyond
criticism, though it frequently remains the only practical way of solving
the difficulty.
Until comparatively recent times, if amongst quarterings inherited the
Royal Arms were included, it was considered a fixed, unalterable rule that
these should be placed in the first quarter, taking precedence of the
pronominal coat, irrespective of their real position according to the date
or pedigree place of introduction. This rule, however, has long since been
superseded, and Royal quarterings now take their position on the same
footing as the others. It very probably arose from the misconception of the
facts concerning an important case which doubtless was considered a
precedent. The family of Mowbray, after their marriage with the heiress of
Thomas de Brotherton, used either the arms of Brotherton alone, these being
England differenced {556} by a label, or else placed them in the first
quarter of their shield. Consequently from this precedent a rule was
deduced that it was permissible and correct to give a Royal quartering
precedence over all others. The position of the Mowbrays, Dukes of Norfolk,
as Earls Marshal no doubt led to their own achievement being considered an
exemplary model. But it appears to have been overlooked that the Mowbrays
bore these Royal Arms of Brotherton not as an inherited quartering but as a
grant to themselves. Richard II. apparently granted them permission to bear
the arms of Edward the Confessor impaled with the arms of Brotherton, the
whole between the two Royal ostrich feathers (Fig. 675), and consequently,
the grant having been made, the Mowbrays were under no necessity to display
the Mowbray or the Segrave arms to bring in the arms of Brotherton. A
little later a similar case occurred with the Stafford family, who became
sole heirs-general of Thomas of Woodstock, and consequently entitled to
bear his arms as a quartering. The matter appears to have been settled at a
chapter of the College of Arms, and the decision arrived at was as
follows:--
_Cott. MS., Titus, C. i. fol. 404, in handwriting of end of sixteenth
century._
[An order made for Henry Duke of Buckingham to beare the Armes of
Thomas of Woodstock alone without any other Armes to bee quartered
therewith. Anno 13 E 4.]
Memorandum that in the yeare of the Reigne of our Soveraign Lord King
Edward the iiij^{th}, the Thurtein in the xviij^{tin} day of ffeverir,
it was concluded in a Chapitre of the office of Armes that where a
nobleman is descended lenyalle Ineritable to iij. or iiij. Cotes and
afterward is ascended to a Cotte neir to the King and of his royall
bloud, may for his most onneur bere the same Cootte alone, and none
lower Coottes of Dignite to be quartered therewith. As my Lord Henry
Duke of Buckingham, Eirll of Harford, Northamton, and Stafford, Lord of
Breknoke and of Holdernes, is assended to the Coottes and ayer to
Thomas of Woodstoke, Duke of Glocestre and Sonne to King Edward the
third, hee may beire his Cootte alone. And it was so Concluded by
[Claurancieulx King of Armes, Marche King of Armes, Gyen King of Armes,
Windesor Herauld, Fawcon Herauld, Harfford Herald].
But I imagine that this decision was in all probability founded upon the
case of the Mowbrays, which was not in itself an exact precedent, because
with the Staffords there appears to have been no such Royal grant as
existed with the Mowbrays. Other instances at about this period can be
alluded to, but though it must be admitted that the rule existed at one
time, it has long since been officially overridden.
A territorial coat or a coat of arms borne to indicate the possession of a
specific title is either placed in the first quarter or borne in {557}
pretence; see the arms of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. A singular instance
of a very exceptional method of marshalling occurs in the case of the arms
of the Earl of Caithness. He bears four coats of arms, some being stated to
be territorial coats, quarterly, dividing them by the cross engrailed sable
from his paternal arms of Sinclair. The arms of the Earls of Caithness are
thus marshalled: "Quarterly, 1. azure, within a Royal tressure a ship with
furled sails all or." For Orkney: "2 and 3. or, a lion rampant gules." For
Spar (a family in possession of the Earldom of Caithness before the
Sinclairs): "4. Azure, a ship in sail or, for Caithness"; and over all,
dividing the quarters, a cross engrailed "sable," for Sinclair. The Barons
Sinclair of Sweden (so created 1766, but extinct ten years later) bore the
above quartered coats as cadets of Caithness, but separated the quarters,
not by the engrailed cross sable of Sinclair, but by a cross patée
throughout ermine. In an escutcheon _en surtout_ they placed the Sinclair
arms: "Argent, a cross engrailed sable"; and, as a mark of cadency, they
surrounded the main escutcheon with "a bordure chequy or and gules." This
arrangement was doubtless suggested by the Royal Arms of Denmark, the
quarterings of which have been for so many centuries separated by the cross
of the Order of the Dannebrog: "Argent, a cross patée throughout fimbriated
gules." In imitation of this a considerable number of the principal
Scandinavian families use a cross patée throughout to separate the quarters
of their frequently complicated coats. The quarterings in these cases are
often not indicative of descent from different families, but were all
included in the original grant of armorial bearings. On the centre of the
cross thus used, an escutcheon, either of augmentation or of the family
arms, is very frequently placed _en surtout_.
The main difference between British and foreign usage with regard to
quartering is this, that in England quarterings are usually employed to
denote simply descent from an heiress, or representation in blood; in
Scotland they also implied the possession of lordships. In foreign coats
the quarterings are often employed to denote the possession of fiefs
acquired in other ways than by marriage (_e.g._ by bequest or purchase), or
the _jus expectationis_, the right of succession to such fiefs in
accordance with certain agreements.
In foreign heraldry the base of the quartered shield is not unfrequently
cut off by a horizontal line, forming what is known as a _Champagne_, and
the space thus made is occupied by one or more coats. At other times a pile
with curved sides runs from the base some distance into the quartered
shield, which is then said to be _enté en point_, and this space is devoted
to the display of one or more quarterings. The definite and precise British
regulations which have grown up on the {558} subject of the marshalling of
arms have no equivalent in the armorial laws of other countries.
Very rarely quartering is affected _per saltire_, as in the arms of Sicily
and in a few coats of Spanish origin, but even as regards foreign armory
the practice is so rare that it may be disregarded.
The laws of marshalling upon the Continent, and particularly in Germany,
are very far from being identical with British heraldic practices.
[Illustration: FIG. 762.--Arms of Hans Wolf von Bibelspurg.]
[Illustration: FIG. 763.--Arms of Hans Wolf von Bibelspurg and his wife
Catherina Waraus married in 1507 at Augsburg.]
[Illustration: FIG. 764.]
The British method of impaling two coats of arms upon one shield to signify
marriage is abroad now wholly discarded, and two shields are invariably
made use of. These shields are placed side by side, the dexter shield being
used to display the man's arms and the sinister those of the woman's
family. The shields are tilted towards each other (the position is not
quite identical with that which we term accollé). But--and this is a
peculiarity practically unknown in England--the German practice invariably
reverses the charges upon the dexter shield, so that the charges upon the
two shields "respect" each other. This perhaps can be most readily
understood by reference to Figs. 762 and 763. The former shows the simple
arms of Von Bibelspurg, the latter the same coat allied with another. But
it should be noted that letters or words, if they appear as charges upon
the shield, are not reversed. This reversing of the charges is by no means
an uncommon practice in Germany for other purposes. For instance, if the
arms of a State are depicted surrounded by the arms of provinces, or if the
arms of a reigning Sovereign are grouped within a bordure of the shields of
other people, the charges on the shields to the dexter are almost
invariably shown in reflection regarding the shield in the centre. This
practice, resting only on what may be termed "heraldic courtesy," dates
back to very early times, and is met with even in Rolls of Arms where the
shields are all turned to face the centre. Such a system was adopted in
Siebmacher's "Book of Arms." But what the true position of the {559}
charges should be when represented upon a simple shield should be
determined by the position of the helmet. It may be of interest to state
that in St. George's Chapel at Windsor the early Stall plates as originally
set up were all disposed so that helmets and charges alike faced the High
Altar.
[Illustration: FIG. 765.]
[Illustration: FIG. 766.--Arms of Loschau or Lexaw, of Augsburg.]
[Illustration: FIG. 767.]
[Illustration: FIG. 768.--Arms of the Elector and Archbishop of Treves.]
The conjunction of three coats of arms in Germany is effected as shown in
Fig. 764. Although matrimonial alliance does not in Germany entail the
conjunction of different coats of arms on one shield, such conjunction does
occur in German heraldry, but it is comparable (in its meaning) with our
rules of quartering and not with our rules of impalement. No such exact and
definite rules exist in that country as are to be met with in our own to
determine the choice of a method of conjunction, nor to indicate the
significance to be presumed from whatever method may be found in use.
Personal selection and the adaptability to any particular method of the
tinctures and the charges themselves of the coats to be conjoined seem to
be the determining factors, and the existing territorial attributes of
German armory have a greater weight in marshalling than the principle of
heirship which is now practically the sole governing factor in British
heraldry. One must therefore content oneself with a brief recital of some
of the various modes of conjunction which have been or are still practised.
These include impalement per pale or per fess (Fig. 765) and dimidiation
(Fig. 766), which is more usual on the Continent than it ever was in these
kingdoms. The subdivision of the field, as with ourselves, is most
frequently adopted; though we are usually confined to quartering, German
armory knows no such restrictions. The most usual subdivisions are as given
in Fig. 767. The ordinary quartered shield is met with in Fig. 768, which
represents the arms of James III., Von Eltz, Elector and Archbishop of
Treves (1567-1581), in which his personal arms of Eltz ("Per fess gules and
argent, in chief a demi-lion issuing or") are quartered with the impersonal
arms of his archbishopric, "Argent, a cross gules." Another method of
conjunction is superimposition, by which the design of the one shield takes
the form of an ordinary imposed {560} upon the other (Fig. 769). A curious
method of conjoining three coats is by engrafting the third in base (Fig.
770). The constant use of the inescutcheon has been already referred to,
and even early English armory (Figs. 706 and 710) has examples of the
widespread Continental practice (which obtains largely in Spanish and
Portuguese heraldry) of surrounding one coat with a bordure of another.
[Illustration: FIG. 769.]
[Illustration: FIG. 770.]
[Illustration: FIG. 771.]
The German method of conjunction by incorporation has been frequently
pleaded in British heraldry, in efforts to account for ancient arms, but
with us (save for occasional use for cadency differencing at an early and
for a limited period) such incorporation only results in and signifies an
originally _new_ coat, and not an authorised marshalling of existing arms
of prior origin and authority. The German method can best be explained by
two examples. Let us suppose a coat "per fess argent and gules," with which
another coat "gules, a fleur-de-lis argent," is to be marshalled. The
result would be "per fess argent and gules, a fleur-de-lis counterchanged."
With smaller objects a more usual method would duplicate the charges, thus
"per bend argent and azure," and "argent, a star of six points azure" would
result in "per bend argent and azure, two stars of six points
counterchanged" (Fig. 771). {561}