The Handbook to English Heraldry Part 25

A few very simple diagrams will clearly elucidate the principle of Marshalling the arms of Husband and Wife. Suppose B (_Baron_) to represent the Husband, and F (_Femme_) the Wife: then, No. 330 B may represent the arms of the Husband, and No. 330 F the arms of the Wife.

If F be _not_ an heiress, the arms of B and F, as husband and wife, are borne impaled, as in No. 330 B F; and their son bears No. 330 B only. If F _be an heiress_, the arms of B and F, as husband and wife, are borne as in No. 331--the arms of the wife on an Escutcheon of Pretence; and, in this case, the son of B and F quarters the arms of both his parents, as No. 332. Now, suppose this son, whose arms are No. 332, to marry a lady, _not_ an heiress, whose arms are No. 330 F F, he would simply impale the arms of his wife, as in No. 333, and his son would bear No.

332 only, as his father bore that quartered s.h.i.+eld before his marriage.

But if the wife of the bearer of No. 332 were to _be an heiress_, he would charge the arms of his wife in pretence upon his own hereditary paternal s.h.i.+eld, as in No. 334; and his son, by this heiress, as before, would quarter the arms of both his parents, as in No. 335. It is obvious that Marshalling on this system (of which I here give the general outline) admits of a widely-extended application. Younger sons in all cases place over all the quarterings of their s.h.i.+eld their own distinctive Mark of Cadency, until they inherit some different quartering from those to which the head of their house is ent.i.tled, and the quartering itself then forms sufficient difference.

A _Widower_ who marries again places the arms of both his wives upon any permanent record, but for ordinary purposes of use, _e.g._ on a seal or carriage, bears only the arms of his living wife.

An _Unmarried Lady_ bears her paternal arms on a _lozenge_, without any Helmet, Crest, or Motto.

A _Widow_ bears on a _lozenge_ the arms borne by her husband and herself. Should she marry again, a Widow ceases to bear the arms of her former husband.

A _Peeress in her own right_, if married to a Peer, has both her own arms and those of her husband fully blazoned, and the lozenge and the s.h.i.+eld, with all their accessories, are marshalled to form a single united group, the achievement of the husband having precedence to the dexter. If married to a Commoner, a Peeress in her own right bears her own arms on a lozenge as before, and her husband marshals her arms ensigned with her coronet in pretence on his s.h.i.+eld: and this lozenge and s.h.i.+eld are grouped together, the lozenge yielding precedence.

_Prelates_ bear the arms of their see impaling their own paternal and hereditary arms, the insignia of the see occupying the dexter half of the s.h.i.+eld, this s.h.i.+eld being ensigned with a mitre only. A married Prelate bears also a second s.h.i.+eld, placed to the sinister of the other, on which are marshalled, in accordance with ordinary usage, his own personal arms with those of his wife. The mitre then is placed over the conjoined s.h.i.+elds.

The _Kings of Arms_, in like manner, bear two s.h.i.+elds, disposed to form a single group: on the dexter s.h.i.+eld their official arms impale their personal; and on the sinister s.h.i.+eld their personal arms are marshalled with the arms of their wives.

Again, the same usage obtains in marshalling the arms of _Knights of Orders of Knighthood_ who, when married, bear two s.h.i.+elds grouped together. On the dexter s.h.i.+eld are blazoned the arms of the Knight himself alone; and around this s.h.i.+eld are displayed the insignia of his Order, or Orders, of Knighthood: and on the sinister s.h.i.+eld the arms of the Knight and of his wife are marshalled, but without the knightly insignia. This second s.h.i.+eld is generally environed with decorative foliage. This usage, prevalent in England, is not accepted or adopted by foreign Heralds: nor does it appear to be required by true heraldic principle, or to be strictly in accordance with it. The wife of a Knight shares his knightly t.i.tle, and takes precedence from her husband's knightly rank; and a knight, with perfect heraldic consistency, might marshal his own knightly insignia about the s.h.i.+eld which is charged with his own arms and those of his wife, whether united by impalement, or when the latter are borne in pretence: and thus a single s.h.i.+eld would be borne, and there would cease to exist any motive for endeavouring to impart to a second s.h.i.+eld some general resemblance to its companion by wreaths or other unmeaning accessories. There are ancient precedents for the use of a single s.h.i.+eld.

_Official Arms_ are not hereditary.

_Royal Personages_, when married, bear their own arms on a separate s.h.i.+eld; and a second s.h.i.+eld bears the arms of the husband and wife conjoined.

The circ.u.mstances of every case must exercise a considerable influence in determining the Marshalling of the Accessories of any s.h.i.+eld, Lozenge, or Group. As a general rule, however, the _Helm_ always rests on the chief of the s.h.i.+eld: Commoners, Knights, Baronets, and Peers place their _Crest_ upon the Helm: Peers and Princes place their _Helm_ upon the Coronet, and their Crest is placed upon the Helmet. The SOVEREIGN places the Crest upon the Royal Crown, which is a part of the Royal Crest, and it is unusual to duplicate the Crown by repeating it below the Helmet. The _Mantling_ is displayed from the back of the Helm: it is most effective when simple in its form and adjustment, and when it droops behind the s.h.i.+eld. The _Motto_ is usually placed below the s.h.i.+eld; but if it has special reference to the Crest, above the Crest.

A Scottish motto always goes over the Crest. _Supporters_ are usually placed erect, as if in the act of really supporting the s.h.i.+eld: they ought to stand either on an appropriate ground, or on a Gothic bas.e.m.e.nt to the entire Achievement. _Badges_, with all _Official_ and _Knightly Insignia_, and all other _Honourable Insignia_ of every kind, are rightly marshalled in an Achievement of Arms.

CHAPTER XII

CADENCY

_Marks of Cadency are temporary or permanent-- The Label-- The Bordure-- The Bendlet, Barrulet, and Canton-- Change of Tincture-- Secondary Charges-- Single Small Charges-- Differences of Illegitimacy-- Cadency of Crests, Badges, &c.-- Modern Cadency._

"Merke ye wele theys questionys here, now folowying!"

--BOKE OF ST. ALBANS, A.D. 1486.

Amongst his comrades in arms, or in the midst of a hostile array, the last object that a mediaeval Knight would expect or desire to observe, on the morning of a battle or a joust, would be an exact counterpart of himself. Occasions, indeed, might sometimes arise, when it might be highly desirable that five or six counterfeit "Richmonds" should accompany one real one to "the field"; or, when a "wild boar of Ardennes" might prefer to encounter the hunters, having about him the choice of his own "boar's brood," garnished at all points exactly after his own fas.h.i.+on. These, however, are rare and strictly exceptional cases. And the Knight, to whom distinction was as the breath of his nostrils, as he closed his vizor trusted confidently to his heraldic insignia to distinguish him, while, in the fore-front of the fray, with sword and lance and axe he would strive manfully to distinguish himself.

This implies that Heraldry, besides a.s.signing to different families their own distinct insignia, should possess the faculty of distinguis.h.i.+ng the several members, and also the various branches of the same family, the one from the other. A faculty such as this Heraldry does possess, in its marks of CADENCY.

In "_marking Cadency_"--that is, in distinguis.h.i.+ng the armorial insignia of kinsmen, who are members of the very same family, or of some one of its various branches, it is a necessary condition of every system of "Differencing" that, while in itself clear and definite and significant, it should be secondary to the leading characteristics of the original Coat of Arms which denotes the senior branch of the Family, and also declares from what fountain-head all the kinsmen of all the branches have derived their common descent.

Various methods for thus marking Cadency were adopted, and accepted as satisfactory, in the early days of Heraldry. Of these I now shall describe and ill.u.s.trate such as are most emphatic in themselves, and in their character most decidedly heraldic,--such also as most advantageously may be retained in use in our own Heraldry of the present time. It will be seen that the "Differences" which mark Cadency necessarily resolve themselves into two groups or cla.s.ses: one, in which the "Difference" is _temporary_ only in its significance and use,--as, when an eldest son, on the death of his father, succeeds to the position in the family which his father had held, he removes his Mark of Cadency as eldest son from his s.h.i.+eld, a.s.sumes the unmarked s.h.i.+eld as his father had borne it before him, and transfers to his own son the mark that previously had distinguished his s.h.i.+eld from that of his father. In the other group, the Marks of Cadency are more _permanent_, and consequently may become integral elements of the heraldic composition in which they appear: thus, the mark of Cadency which distinguishes any particular branch of a family, is borne alike by all the members of that branch, and in that branch it is transmitted from generation to generation.

More than one Mark of Cadency may be introduced into the same Coat of Arms; and, for the purpose of some form of secondary distinction, it is quite correct Heraldry to _mark Marks of Cadency_--to charge one variety of mark, that is, upon another.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 336.--Eldest Sons of Edward I. and II.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 337.--Black Prince.]

The LABEL, Nos. 271, 272, is blazoned as a Mark of Cadency in the earliest Rolls of Arms, and it appears discharging this duty in the earliest examples. The Label is generally borne with three points, as in No. 271; frequently with five, as in No. 272; and occasionally with four or with more than five points. It is quite certain that no significance was formerly attached to the number of the points, the object in all cases being to make the Label distinctly visible, and to adjust the points to the general composition of the s.h.i.+eld. Labels are of various tinctures. EDWARD I., EDWARD II., and EDWARD III., each one during the lifetime of his father, bore the s.h.i.+eld of England, No. 187, differenced with an _azure label_, sometimes of three points, as in No. 336, and sometimes having five points. EDWARD the BLACK PRINCE marked the Royal s.h.i.+eld of EDWARD III. with a _label argent_, as in No. 337; and a plain silver label has since been the Mark of Cadency of every succeeding heir-apparent to the English throne. The Label has been used in this manner by personages of all ranks who have borne arms, from the time of HENRY III.; and examples abound in all the early Rolls of Arms, in Monuments, and upon Seals.

The _Label_, borne as a Mark of Cadency, was sometimes, particularly in the cases of junior members of the Royal Family, charged with other figures and devices, as differences of a secondary rank. Or, when it is thus charged, the charges upon a Label may be considered to be elements of the Label itself, in its capacity of a Mark of Cadency. EDMOND, the first Earl of LANCASTER, as I have already shown, No. 249, differenced his father's Arms of England with a _Label of France_, No. 338--an azure label, that is, charged with golden fleurs de lys, to denote his French alliance; and thus by the same process he was Marshalling and Marking Cadency. JOHN OF GHENT, Duke of LANCASTER, differenced with an _ermine Label_, No. 339, derived from the ermine s.h.i.+eld of Brittany (No. 15): and the Plantagenet Dukes of YORK charged each point of their silver Label with _three torteaux_, No. 340, which may be considered to have been derived from the s.h.i.+eld of Wake (No. 82). In order to show them on a larger scale, the Labels in Nos. 338-343 are represented without the s.h.i.+elds on which they were charged. All these s.h.i.+elds would be repet.i.tions of the same blazonry of France and England quarterly: Nos.

252 and 253.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 338.--Lancaster.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 339.--Brittany.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 340.--York.]

The Label, with various Differences, has generally been the Royal Mark of Cadency; and now differenced silver Labels are borne, to mark Cadency, by every member of our Royal Family.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 341.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 342.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 343.]

Like the points of Labels, the Charges blazoned on those points had no fixed or determinate numbers. That both the Labels and their Charges should be distinct and conspicuous, was the special object with which they were blazoned. Accordingly, in different examples of the same Label the number of the repet.i.tions of the Charges sometimes is found to differ. At the same time, in the earliest examples of charged Labels, the repet.i.tions of the Charges, while devoid of any special differencing aim or meaning, may be considered to have been suggested by the sources from which the Charges themselves were derived. For example: the Label of Lancaster, No. 338, of Earl EDMOND, derived directly from the s.h.i.+eld of _France ancient_, No. 247, with its field _semee de lys_, has three fleurs de lys upon each point, so that this Label has the appearance of being also _semee de lys_. Had it been derived from the s.h.i.+eld of _France modern_, No. 248, charged with three fleurs de lys only, a single fleur de lys in all probability would have been blazoned on each of the three points of this same Label. Upon this principle the Label of Prince LIONEL, DUKE of CLARENCE, second son of EDWARD III., which is differenced with _cantons gules_, has a single canton on each point, as in No. 341, evidently because only a single canton can be blazoned on a s.h.i.+eld. The figures and devices that are charged for secondary difference upon Labels vary widely in their character; but, however difficult it now may be in very many instances to trace these differencing charges to their sources, and so to determine the motive which led to their adoption, there can be no doubt that originally they were chosen and adopted for the express purpose of denoting and recording some alliance or dependency. Some early Labels are of a compound character; that is, they are charged with two distinct groups of devices, which are at once divided and conjoined by impalement. Such a Label was borne by Prince HENRY, son of JOHN of GHENT, between the time of his father's death and his own accession as HENRY IV. (Feb. 3 to Sept. 30, 1399): it was a _Label of five points per pale of Brittany and Lancaster_, No. 342, being his father's Label impaling that of his mother's father. The second son of this Prince, THOMAS Duke of CLARENCE, instead of adopting impalement, charged _a red canton upon each point of an ermine Label_, as in No. 343: while his brother, JOHN Duke of BEDFORD, bore their father's Label, No. 342.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 344.--Holland, of Kent.]

The BORDURE, both plain and charged, is a Mark of Cadency borne by Princes and by personages of various ranks. EDMOND, youngest son of EDWARD I., differenced _England_ with a plain _silver bordure_, as in No. 344: the HOLLANDS, Earls of KENT, did the same: and the same silver bordure also was borne by THOMAS, youngest son of EDWARD III., about the quartered s.h.i.+eld of _France ancient and England_; and about the quartered s.h.i.+eld of _France modern and England_ by HUMPHREY, youngest son of HENRY IV. Prince JOHN of ELTHAM, as I have already shown, and after him the HOLLANDS, Dukes of EXETER, differenced _England with a Bordure of France_: No. 24. Though not so numerous as Labels, Bordures employed to mark Cadency exist in very many early examples, and a variety of devices appear charged upon them for secondary Difference.

See No. 140. In the Royal Heraldry of our own times the Bordure is not used as a Royal Difference; but its use is retained in Scotland for differencing s.h.i.+elds of less exalted rank.

In some few early Examples a BENDLET is charged upon the paternal s.h.i.+eld as a mark of Cadency: and a BARRULET is found to have been also used for the same purpose. Thus, HENRY, second son of EDMOND the first Earl of LANCASTER, during the lifetime of his elder brother, differenced _England_ with an _azure Bendlet_, as in No. 345: and, in the Seal of HENRY DE PERCY, son and heir of HENRY third Baron, the lion is debruised, for Difference, by a Barrulet which crosses the s.h.i.+eld in the honour-point. Possibly, this Barrulet may be a _Label without points_.

A CANTON, plain, or more frequently charged, and in many examples of ermine, is also added to s.h.i.+elds to mark Cadency, but more frequently nowadays its use denotes absence of blood descent. See Nos. 128, 129, 130.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 345.--Henry of Lancaster.]

To mark Cadency by a _change of Tinctures_ was a simple expedient, and such a one as would naturally be practised at an early period. It was effected, first, in the case of the _Field_: thus (H. 3) the brothers DE LA ZOUCHE severally bear--_Gu., bezantee_, and, _Az., bezantee_; and the brothers FURNIVAL (H. 3) bear--_Arg., a bend between six martlets gu._, and, _Or, a bend between six martlets gu._ Secondly, the change is effected in the _Charges_: thus, two William BARDOLFS (H. 3 and E. 2) severally bear--_Az., three cinquefoils or_, and, _Az., three cinquefoils arg._ Thirdly, the tinctures are _reversed_: for example, for two Sir JOHN HARCOURTS (E. 2)--_Gu., two bars or_, and, _Or, two bars gu._ Fourthly, there is a complete change in _all the tinctures_: and so, while Sir ANDREW LOTEREL (E. 2) bears--_Or, a bend between six martlets sa._, Sir GEFFREY LOTEREL (E. 2) bears--_Az., a bend between six martlets argent_. Finally, this system of marking Cadency admits various modifications of the changes already described: thus, in the Arms of Mortimer, No. 131, _gules_ is subst.i.tuted for _azure_; and, again, in the same s.h.i.+eld an _inescutcheon ermine_ takes the place of the _inescutcheon argent_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 346.--Beauchamp of Elmely.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 347.--Beauchamp at Carlaverock.]

Another and a favourite method of marking Cadency, calculated to exercise a great and decided influence in the development of heraldic blazon, is the _addition of secondary Charges_ of small size (not on a Label or a Bordure but) semee over the field of a s.h.i.+eld, or charged upon an Ordinary, or disposed in orle. In a large number of examples, these small charges are found to have been gradually reduced to six or three, in order to admit of their being blazoned on a somewhat larger scale, and consequently made more distinct. Again: while the number and the tinctures of the secondary differencing charges remain the same, in order to carry out the Cadency still farther the secondary charges themselves are varied: and, once more, in other cases the ident.i.ty of the original secondary charges is retained, but their number is increased or diminished. I must be content to ill.u.s.trate these various forms of Cadency with a few examples only. First, a group of s.h.i.+elds of the BEAUCHAMPS:--Beauchamp of Elmely (H. 3)--_Gu., a fesse or_, No. 346: Beauchamp at Carlaverock--_Gu., crusilee and a fesse or_, No. 347: Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick--_Gu., a fesse between six crosses crosslets or_, No. 348: and Beauchamp of Bletshoe--_Gu., a fesse between six martlets or_, No. 349. Second, a corresponding group of s.h.i.+elds of the BERKELEYS:--Maurice de Barkele (or Berkeley)--_Gu., a chevron arg._ (H. 3): and then for other Berkeleys--_Gu., a chevron between ten crosses pattees, six and four, arg._; and the same Ordinary, with either _ten cinquefoils of silver_, or the same number of _white roses_. Three CORBETS bear severally (E. 2)--_Or, a raven sa._; _Or, two ravens sa._; and, _Or, three ravens sa._ And, once more, their original s.h.i.+eld--_Gu., a chevron or_, is differenced by the COBHAMS by charging the Ordinary with three lioncels, three eaglets, three crosslets, three mullets, three estoiles, three crescents, or three fleurs de lys, all of them sable. The particular devices and figures selected thus to mark Cadency, like those charged upon Labels or Bordures, must be considered to have a special significance of their own, though this significance may frequently fail to be discerned in consequence of our being no longer able to trace out their a.s.sociation with the sources from which they were obtained. The alliances and the incidents that give these various Marks of Cadency, when it is possible to ascertain what they may have been, ill.u.s.trate in a striking manner the motives by which the early Heralds were influenced when they differenced the Arms of Kinsmen.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 348.--Beauchamp of Warwick.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 349.--Beauchamp of Bletshoe.]

_Official Insignia_ sometimes become Marks of Cadency. Thus, JOHN DE GRANDISON, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1327-1369), on the bend in his paternal arms, No. 89, subst.i.tutes a _golden mitre_ for the central eaglet, as in No. 350. WILLIAM COURTENAY, Archbishop of Canterbury (A.D.

1381-1396), adopts a different course, and charges three golden mitres upon each point of the Label of Courtenay--_Or, three torteaux, over all a label of three points az. charged on each point with as many mitres gold_. And again, HENRY LE DESPENCER, Bishop of Norwich (A.D.

1370-1406), places about his paternal s.h.i.+eld an _azure bordure charged with eight golden mitres_ (see the largest s.h.i.+eld in No. 351). On his official seal the canopied effigy of the Bishop stands between this, his personal s.h.i.+eld, and the s.h.i.+eld of his see--_az., three mitres or_: but his Secretum, or private seal, is much more interesting, as an heraldic image of the man himself. Haughty, fierce, cruel, and pugnacious, his career not less inglorious as a military commander than as a churchman, this HENRY LE DESPENCER, a grandson of the unhappy favourite of the no less hapless EDWARD II., was one of the war-loving prelates who occasionally appear sustaining a strange, and yet as it would seem a characteristic, part in the romantic drama of mediaeval history. His Secretum, No. 351, displays his s.h.i.+eld of _Despencer_, differenced with his bordure of mitres, couche from a large mantled helm, surmounted by a mitre, in place of a crest-coronet, which supports the Despencer crest, a silver griffin's head of ample size; on either side are the s.h.i.+elds of the _see of Norwich_, and of _Ferrers_ (the Bishop's mother was Anne, daughter of WILLIAM Lord FERRERS of Groby)--_Or, seven mascles, three three and one, gu._; the legend is, S . HENRICI . DESPENCER .

NORWICENSIS . EPISCOPI.