"Thinks the lozenge is formed of the shield called _Tessera_ or
_Tessela_, which the Romans, finding unfit for use, did allow to women
to place their ensigns upon, with one of its angles always upmost."
Though unable at this moment to furnish examples in proof of my opinion, I
must say that it is contrary to the one expressed by your correspondent
CEYREP, that "formerly all ladies of rank" bore their arms upon a complete
shield, or bore shields upon their seals. The two instances cited by him
are rather unfortunate, the connexion of both ladies with royalty being
sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of their right to the "full
and complete" shield.
Margaret, Duchess (not Countess) of Norfolk, was sole heir of her father,
Thomas of Brotherton, fifth Earl of Norfolk, son of King Edward I., and
Marshal of England. She, "for the greatness of her birth, her large
revenues and wealth," was created Duchess of Norfolk for life; and at the
coronation of King Richard II. she exhibited her petition "to be accepted
to the office of High Marshal," which was, I believe, granted. In such
case, setting aside her royal descent, I apprehend that, by virtue of her
office, she would not bear her arms in a lozenge. She bore the arms of
England with only a label for difference.
Margaret, Countess of Richmond, was herself royally descended, being
great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III.; was
daughter-in-law of Henry V.'s widow, and mother of Henry VII. Being
descended from the antenuptial children of John of Gaunt's third wife, who
had been legitimatised by act of parliament for all purposes except
succession to the crown, {85} Henry VII. would probably desire by every
means in his power to suppress anything suggestive of his unsubstantial
title to the crown. It might be by his particular desire that his mother
assumed the full regal shield, on which to emblazon arms differing but
slightly from those of her son, the king.
It is not, however, my opinion that the form of shield under consideration
is anything like so ancient as some of the authors would make it. I do not
believe it comes to us either from the Amazons or the Romans.
My own opinion, in the absence of any from the great writers to guide me,
is, that we owe the use of this form of shield amongst ladies to
_hatchments_ or _funeral achievements_. During the time of mourning for
persons of rank, their coats of arms are set up in churches and over the
principal entrances of their houses. On these occasions it is well known
their arms are always placed in a large black lozenge; a form adopted as
the most proper figure for admitting the coats of arms of sixteen ancestors
to be placed round it, four on each of the sides of the square.
It was not until the reign of Richard III. that the College of Arms was
regularly incorporated; and though the science of heraldry received its
highest polish during the splendid reigns of Edward III. and Henry V., it
had yet scarcely been subjected to those rules which since the
establishment of the College have controlled it. Mark Noble, in his
_History of the College of Arms_, says that the latter reign--
"If it did not add to the wealth of the nation at large, gave rise to a
number of great families, enriched by the spoils of Azincourt, the
plunder of France, and the ransom of princes. The heraldic body was
peculiarly prized and protected by the king, who, however, was very
whimsical in the adoption of cognizances and devices."
During the greater portion of the fourteenth century, and the early part of
the fifteenth, there was a rage for jousts, tilts, and tournaments; and
almost every English nobleman had his officers of arms; dukes, marquesses,
and earls were allowed a herald and pursuivant; the lower nobility, and
even knights, might retain one of the latter. To these officers belonged
the ordering of everything relating to the solemn and magnificent funerals,
which were so general in these centuries, and which they presided over and
marshalled.
During the reign of Edward IV. the exact form of these obsequies was
prescribed. Not only were the noblemen's own heralds there, but the king's
also; and not in tabards bearing the sovereign's, but the deceased's arms.
So preposterously fond of funeral rites were monarchs and their subjects,
that the obsequies of princes were observed by such sovereigns as were in
alliance with them, and in the same state as if the royal remains had been
conveyed from one Christian kingdom to another. Individuals had their
obsequies kept in various places where they had particular connexions.[3]
Is it too much then to presume that in the midst of all this pomp and
affectation of grief, the hatchment of the deceased nobleman would be
displayed as much, and continued as long, as possible by the widow? May we
not reasonably believe that these ladies would vie with each other in these
displays of the insignia of mourning, until, by usage, the lozenge-shaped
hatchment became the shield appropriated to the sex?
These hypotheses are not without some foundation; but if any of your
correspondents will enunciate another theory, I shall be glad to give it my
support if it is found to be more reasonable than the foregoing.