CHAPTER XXXI

MARKS OF CADENCY The manner in which cadency is indicated in heraldic emblazonment forms one of the most important parts of British armory, but our own intricate and minutely detailed systems are a purely British development of armory. I do not intend by the foregoing remark to assert that the occasional use, or even, as in some cases, the constant use of altered arms for purposes of indicating cadency is unknown on the Continent, because different branches of one family are constantly found using, for the purposes of distinction, variations of the arms appertaining to the head of their house; in France especially the bordure has been extensively used, but the fact nevertheless remains that in no other countries is there found an organised system or set of rules for the purpose. Nor is this idea of the indication of cadency wholly a modern development, though some, in fact most, of the rules presently in force are no doubt a result of modern requirements, and do not date back to the earliest periods of heraldry in this country. The obligation of cadet lines to difference their arms was recognised practically universally in the fourteenth century; and when, later, the systematic use of differencing seemed in danger of being ignored, it was made the subject of specific legislation. In the treatise of ZYPOEUS, _de Notitia juris Belgici_, lib. xii., quoted also in MENETRIER, _Recherches du Blazon_, p. 218, we find the following:-- "Ut secundo et ulterius geniti, quinimo primogeniti vivo patre, integra insignia non gerant, sed aliqua nota distincta, ut perpetuo linæ dignosci possint, et ex qua quique descendant, donec anteriores defecerint. Exceptis Luxenburgis et Gueldris, quibus non sunt ii mores." (The exception is curious.) The choice of these _brisures_, as marks of difference are often termed, was, however, left to the persons concerned; and there is, consequently, a great variety of differences or differentiation marks which seem to have been used for the purpose. The term "brisure" is really French, whilst the German term for these marks is "Beizeichen." British heraldry, on the contrary, is remarkable for its use of two {478} distinct sets of rules--the English and the Scottish--the Irish system being identical with the former. To understand the question of cadency it is necessary to revert to the status of a coat of arms in early periods. In the first chapter we dealt with the origin of armory; and in a subsequent chapter with the status of a coat of arms in Great Britain, and it will therefrom have been apparent that arms, and a right to them, developed in this country as an adjunct of, or contemporaneously with, the extension of the feudal system. Every landowner was at one time required to have his seal--presumably, of arms--and as a result arms were naturally then considered to possess something of a territorial character. I do not by this mean to say that the arms belonged to the land and were transferable with the sale and purchase thereof. There never was in this country a period at which such an idea held; nor were arms originally entirely personal or individual. They belonged rather to a position half-way between the two. They were the arms of a given family, originating because that family held land and accepted the consequent responsibilities thereto belonging, but the arms appertained for the time being to the member of that family who owned the land, and that this is the true idea of the former status of a coat of arms is perhaps best evidenced by the Grey and Hastings controversy, which engaged the attention of the Court of Chivalry for several years prior to 1410. The decision and judgment in the case gave the undifferenced arms of Hastings to the heir-general (Grey de Ruthyn), the heir-male (Sir Edward Hastings) being found only capable of bearing the arms of Hastings subject to some mark of difference. This case, and the case of Scrope and Grosvenor, in which the king's award was that the bordure was not sufficient difference for a stranger in blood, being only the mark of a cadet, show clearly that the status of a coat of arms in early times was that in its undifferenced state it belonged to one person only for the time being, and that person the head of the family, though it should be noted that the term "Head of the Family" seems to have been interpreted into the one who held the lands of the family--whether he were heir-male or heir-general being apparently immaterial. This much being recognised, it follows that some means were needed to be devised to differentiate the armorial bearings of the younger members of the family. Of course the earliest definite instances of any attempt at a systematic "differencing" for cadency which can be referred to are undoubtedly those cases presented by the arms of the younger members of the Royal Family in England. These cases, however, it is impossible to take as precedents. Royal Arms have always, from the very earliest times, been a law unto themselves, {479} subject only to the will of the Sovereign, and it is neither safe nor correct to deduce precedents to be applied to the arms of subjects from proved instances concerning the Royal Arms. Probably, apart from these, the earliest mark of cadency which is to be met with in heraldry is the label (Fig. 689) used to indicate the eldest son, and this mark of difference dates back far beyond any other regularised methods applicable to "younger" sons. The German name for the label is "Turnierkragen," _i.e._ Tournament Collar, which may indicate the origin of this curious figure. Probably the use of the label can be taken back to the middle or early part of the thirteenth century, but the opportunity and necessity of marking the arms of the heir-apparent temporarily, he having the expectation of eventually succeeding to the undifferenced arms, is a very different matter to the other opportunities for the use of marks of cadency. The lord and his heir were the two most important members of the family, and all others sunk their identity in their position in the household of their chief unless they were established by marriage, or otherwise, in lordships of their own, in which cases they are usually found to have preferred the arms of the family from whom they inherited the lordships they enjoyed; and their identities being to such a large extent overlooked, the necessity for any system of marking the arms of a younger son was not so early apparent as the necessity for marking the arms of the heir. [Illustration: FIG. 689.--The label.] The label does not appear to have been originally confined exclusively to the heir. It was at first the only method of differencing known, and it is not therefore to be wondered at that we find that it was frequently used by other cadets, who used it with no other meaning than to indicate that they were not the Head of the House. It has, consequently, in some few cases [for example, in the arms of Courtenay (Fig. 246), Babington, and Barrington] become stereotyped as a charge, and is continuously and unchangeably used as such, whereas doubtless it may have been no more originally than a mere mark of cadency. The label was originally drawn with its upper edge identical with the top of the shield (Fig. 520), but later its position on the shield was lowered. The number of points on the label was at first without meaning, a five-pointed label occurring in Fig. 690 and a seven-pointed one in Fig. 235. In the Roll of Caerlaverock the label is repeatedly referred to. Of Sir MAURICE DE BERKELEY it is expressly declared that "... un label de asur avoit, Porce qe ces peres vivoit." {480} Sir PATRICK DUNBAR, son of the Earl of LOTHIAN (_i.e._ of MARCH), then bore arms similar to his father, with the addition of a label "azure." On the other hand, Sir JOHN DE SEGRAVE is said to bear his deceased father's arms undifferenced, while his younger brother NICHOLAS carries them with a label "gules"; and in the case of EDMUND DE HASTINGS the label is also assigned to a younger brother. Further proof of its being thus borne by cadets is furnished by the evidence in the GREY and HASTINGS controversy in the reign of HENRY IV., from which it appeared that the younger line of the HASTINGS family had for generations differenced the paternal coat by a label of three points; and, as various knights and esquires had deposed to this label being the cognisance of the nearest heir, it was argued that the defendant's ancestors would not have borne their arms in this way had they not been the reputed next heirs of the family of the Earl of PEMBROKE. The label will be seen in Figs. 690, 691, and 692, though its occurrence in the last case in each of the quarters is most unusual. The argent label on the arms for the Sovereignty of Man is a curious confirmation of the reservation of an argent label for Royalty. [Illustration: FIG. 690.--Arms of John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (d. 1240): Quarterly, or and gules, a bend sable, and a label argent. (MS. Cott. Nero, D. 1.)] [Illustration: FIG. 691.--Arms of John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (son of John, Duke of Suffolk), d. 1487: Quarterly, 1 and 4, azure, a fess between three leopards' faces or; 2 and 3, per fess gules and argent, a lion rampant queue fourché or, armed and langued azure, over all a label argent. (From his seal.)] [Illustration: FIG. 692.--Arms of William Le Scrope, Earl of Wiltes (d. 1399): Quarterly, 1 and 4, the arms of the Isle of Man, a label argent; 2 and 3, azure, a bend or, a label gules. (From Willement's Roll, sixteenth century.)] WILLIAM RUTHVEN, Provost of PERTH, eldest son of the Master of RUTHVEN, bore a label of four points in 1503. Two other instances may be noticed of a label borne by a powerful younger brother. One is WALTER STEWART, Earl of MENTEITH, the fourth High Steward, in 1292; and we find the label again on the seal of his son ALEXANDER STEWART, Earl of MENTEITH. At Caerlaverock, HENRY of Lancaster, brother and successor of THOMAS, Earl of LANCASTER-- "Portait les armes son frère Au beau bastoun sans label," _i.e._ he bore the Royal Arms, differenced by a bendlet "azure." {481} JANE FENTOUN, daughter and heir-apparent of WALTER FENTOUN of Baikie, bore a label in 1448, and dropped it after her father's death. This is apparently an instance quite unique. I know of no other case where the label has been used by a woman as a mark of difference. In FRANCE the label was the chief recognised mode of difference, though the bend and the bordure are frequently to be met with. In GERMANY, SPENER tells us that the use of the label, though occasional, was not infrequent: "Sicuti in Gallia vix alius discerniculorum modus frequentior est, ita rariora exempla reperimus in Germania," and he gives a few examples, though he is unable to assign the reason for its assumption as a hereditary bearing. The most usual method of differencing in Germany was by the alteration of the tinctures or by the alteration of the charges. As an example of the former method, the arms of the Bavarian family of Parteneck may be instanced (Figs. 693 to 697), all representing the arms of different branches of the same family. [Illustration: FIG. 693.--Parteneck.] [Illustration: FIG. 694.--Cammer.] [Illustration: FIG. 695.--Cammerberg.] [Illustration: FIG. 696.--Hilgertshauser.] [Illustration: FIG. 697.--Massenhauser.] Next to the use of the label in British heraldry came the use of the bordure, and the latter as a mark of cadency can at any rate be traced back _as a well-established matter of rule_ and precedent as far as the Scrope and Grosvenor controversy in the closing years of the fourteenth century. At the period when the bordure as a difference is to be most frequently met with in English heraldry, it never had any more definite status or meaning than a sign that the bearer was _not_ the head of the house, though one cannot but think that in many cases in which it occurs its significance is a doubt as to legitimate descent, or a doubt of the probability of an asserted descent. In modern _English_ practice the bordure as a difference for cadets only continues to be used by those whose ancestors bore it in ancient times. Its other use as a modern mark of illegitimacy is dealt with in the chapter upon marks of illegitimacy, but the curious and unique _Scottish_ system of cadency bordures will be presently referred to. In Germany of old the use of the bordure as a difference does not appear to have been very frequent, but it is now used to distinguish {482} the arms of the Crown Prince. In Italian heraldry, although differences are known, there is no system whatever. In Spain and Portugal marks of cadency, in our sense of the word, are almost unknown, but nevertheless the bordure, especially as indicating descent from a maternal ancestor, is very largely employed. The most familiar instance is afforded by the Royal Arms of Portugal, in which the arms of PORTUGAL are surrounded by a "bordure" of CASTILE. Differencing, however, had become a necessity at an earlier period than the period at which we find an approach to the systematic usage of the label, bordure, and bend, but it should be noticed that those who wished, and needed, to difference were those younger members of the family who by settlement, or marriage, had themselves become lords of other estates, and heads of distinct houses. For a man must be taken as a "Head of a House" for all intents and purposes as soon as by his possession of lands "held in chief" he became _himself_ liable to the Crown to provide stated military service, and as a consequence found the necessity for a banner of arms, under which his men could be mustered. Now having these positions as overlords, the inducement was rather to set up arms for themselves than to pose merely as cadets of other families, and there can be no doubt whatever that at the earliest period, differencing, for the above reason, took the form of and was meant as a _change in the arms_. It was something quite beyond and apart from the mere condition of a right to recognised arms, with an indication thereupon that the bearer was not the person chiefly entitled to the display of that particular coat. We therefore find cadets bearing the arms of their house with the tincture changed, with subsidiary charges introduced, or with some similar radical alteration made. Such coats should properly be considered essentially _different_ coats, merely _indicating_ in their design a given relationship rather than as the _same_ coat regularly differenced by rule to indicate cadency. For instance, the three original branches of the Conyers family bear: "Azure, a maunch ermine; azure, a maunch or; azure, a maunch ermine debruised by a bendlet gules." The coat differenced by the bend, of course, stands self-confessed as a differenced coat, but it is by no means certain, nor is it known whether "azure, a maunch ermine," or "azure, a maunch or" indicates the original Conyers arms, for the very simple reason that it is now impossible to definitely prove which branch supplies the true head of the family. It is known that a wicked uncle intervened, and usurped the estates to the detriment of the nephew and heir, but whether the uncle usurped the arms with the estates, or whether the heir changed his arms when settled on the other lands to which he migrated, there is now no means of ascertaining. Similarly we find the Darcy arms ["Argent, three cinquefoils gules," {483} which is probably the oldest form], "Argent, crusuly and three cinquefoils gules," and "Azure, crusuly and three cinquefoils argent," and countless instances can be referred to where, for the purpose of indicating cadency, the arms of a family were changed in this manner. This reason, of which there can be no doubt, supplies the origin and the excuse for the custom of assigning _similar_ arms when the descent is but doubtful. Similarity originally, though it _may_ indicate consanguinity, was never intended to be proof thereof. The principal ancient methods of alteration in arms, which nowadays are apparently accepted as former modes of differencing merely to indicate cadency, may perhaps be classified into: (_a_) Change of tincture; (_b_) the addition of small charges to the field, or to an ordinary; (_c_) the addition of a label or (_d_) of a canton or quarter; (_e_) the addition of an inescutcheon; (_f_) the addition (or change) of an ordinary; (_g_) the changing of the lines of partition enclosing an ordinary, and perhaps also (_h_) diminishing the number of charges; (_i_) a change of some or all of the minor charges. At a later date came (_j_) the systematic use of the label, the bordure, and the bend; and subsequently (_k_) the use of the modern systems of "marks of cadency." Perhaps, also, one should include (_l_) the addition of quarterings, the use of (_m_) augmentations and official arms, and (_n_) the escutcheon _en surtout_, indicating a territorial and titular lordship, but the three last-mentioned, though useful for distinction and frequently obviating the necessity of other marks of cadency, did not originate with the theory or necessities of differencing, and are not properly marks of cadency. At the same time, the warning should be given that it is not safe always to presume cadency when a change of tincture or other slight deviation from an earlier form of the arms is met with. Many families when they exhibited their arms at the Visitations could not substantiate them, and the heralds, in confirming arms, frequently deliberately changed the tinctures of many coats they met with, to introduce distinction from other authorised arms. Practically contemporarily with the use of the bordure came the use of the bend, then employed for the same purpose. In the _Armorial de Gelre_, one of the earliest armorials now in existence which can be referred to, the well-known coat of Abernethy is there differenced by the bendlet engrailed, and the arms of the King of Navarre bear his quartering of France differenced by a bendlet compony. Amongst other instances in which the bend or bendlet appears originally as a mark of cadency, but now as a charge, may be mentioned the arms of Fitzherbert, Fulton, Stewart (Earl of Galloway), and others. It is a safe presumption with regard to ancient coats of arms that any coat in which the field is semé is in nine cases out of ten a differenced coat {484} for a junior cadet, as is also any coat in which a charge or ordinary is debruised by another. Of course in more modern times no such presumption is permissible. An instance of a semé field for cadency will be found in the case of the D'Arcy arms already mentioned. Little would be gained by a long list of instances of such differences, because the most careful and systematic investigations clearly show that in early times no definite rules whatever existed as to the assumption of differences, which largely depended upon the pleasure of the bearer, and no system can be deduced which can be used to decide that the appearance of any given difference or kind of difference meant a given set of circumstances. Nor can any system be deduced which has any value for the purposes of precedent. Certain instances are appended which will indicate the style of differencing which was in vogue, but it should be distinctly remembered that the object was not to allocate the bearer of any particular coat of arms to any specific place in the family pedigree, but merely to show that he was not the head of the house, entitled to bear the undifferenced arms, if indeed it would not be more accurate to describe these instances as simply examples of different coats of arms used by members of the same family. For it should be remembered that anciently, before the days of "black and white" illustration, prominent change of tincture was admittedly a sufficient distinction between strangers in blood. Beyond the use of the label and the bordure there does not seem to have been any recognised system of differencing until at the earliest the fifteenth century--probably any regulated system does not date much beyond the commencement of the series of Visitations. Of the four sons of GILLES DE MAILLY, who bore, "Or, three mallets vert," the second, third, and fourth sons respectively made the charges "gules," "azure," and "sable." The "argent" field of the DOUGLAS coat was in some branches converted into "ermine" as early as 1373; and the descendants of the DOUGLASES of Dalkeith made the chief "gules" instead of "azure." A similar mode of differencing occurs in the Lyon Register in many other families. The MURRAYS of Culbin in the North bore a "sable" field for their arms in lieu of the more usual "azure," and there seems reason to believe that the Southern Frasers originally bore their field "sable," the change to "azure" being an alteration made by those branches who migrated northwards. An interesting series of arms is met with in the case of the differences employed by the Earls of Warwick. Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. 1204), appears to have added to the arms of Warenne (his mother's family) "a chevron ermine." His son Henry, Earl of Warwick (d. 1229), changed the chevron to a bend, but Thomas, Earl {485} of Warwick (d. 1242), reverted to the chevron, a form which was perpetuated after the earldom had passed to the house of Beauchamp. An instance of the addition of mullets to the bend in the arms of Bohun is met with in the cadet line created Earls of Northampton. The shield of WILLIAM DE ROUMARE, Earl of LINCOLN, who died in 1198, is adduced by Mr. PLANCHÉ as an early example of differencing by crosses crosslet; the principal charges being seven mascles conjoined, three, three, and one. We find in the Rolls of Arms of the thirteenth and early part of the fourteenth century many instances of coats crusily, billetty, bezanty, and "pleyn d'escallops," fleurette, and "a les trefoiles d'or." With these last Sir EDMOND DACRE of Westmoreland powdered the shield borne by the head of his family: "Gules, three escallops or" (Roll of Edward II.). The coat borne by the ACTONS of Aldenham, "Gules, crusily or, two lions passant argent," is sometimes quoted as a gerated coat of LESTRANGE; for EDWARD DE ACTON married the coheiress of LESTRANGE (living 1387), who bore simply: "Gules, two lions passant argent." That the arms of Acton are derived from Lestrange cannot be questioned, but the probability is that they were _a new invention_ as a distinct coat, the charges suggested by Lestrange. The original coat of the House of Berkeley in England (Barclay in Scotland) appears to have been: "Gules, a chevron or" (or "argent"). The seals of ROBERT DE BERKELEY, who died 4 Henry III., and MAURICE DE BERKELEY, who died 1281, all show the shield charged with a chevron only. MORIS DE BARKELE, in the Roll _temp._ Henry III., bears: "Goules, a chevron argent." But THOMAS, son of MAURICE, who died 15 EDWARD II., has the present coat: "Gules, a chevron between ten crosses patée argent;" while in the roll of Edward II., "De goules od les rosettes de argent et un chevron de argent" is attributed to Sir THOMAS DE BERKELEY. In Leicestershire the BERKELEYS gerated with cinquefoils, an ancient and favourite bearing in that county, derived of course from the arms or badge of the Earl of Leicester. In Scotland the BARCLAYS differenced by change of tincture, and bore: "Azure, a chevron argent between (or in chief) three crosses patée of the same." An interesting series of differences is met with upon the arms of NEVILLE of Raby, which are: "Gules, a saltire argent," and which were differenced by a crescent "sable"; a martlet "gules"; a mullet "sable" and a mullet "azure"; a "fleur-de-lis"; a rose "gules"; a pellet, or annulet, "sable," this being the difference of Lord Latimer; and two interlaced annulets "azure," all borne on the centre point of the saltire. The interlaced annulets were borne by Lord Montagu, as a _second_ difference on the arms of his father, Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, he and his brother the King-maker _both_ using the curious {486} compony label of azure and argent borne by their father, which indicated their descent from John of Gaunt. One of the best known English examples of differencing by a change of charges is that of the coat of the COBHAMS, "Gules, a chevron or," in which the ordinary was charged by various cadets with three pierced estoiles, three lions, three crossed crosslets, three "fleurs-de-lis," three crescents, and three martlets, all of "sable." The original GREY coat ["Barry of six argent and azure"] is differenced in the Roll of Edward I. by a bend gules for JOHN DE GREY; at Caerlaverock this is engrailed. The SEGRAVE coat ["Sable, a lion rampant argent"] is differenced by the addition of "a bendlet or"; or "a bendlet gules"; and the last is again differenced by engrailing it. In the Calais Roll the arms of WILLIAM DE WARREN ["Chequy or and azure"] are differenced by the addition of a canton said to be that of FITZALAN (but really that of NERFORD). Whilst no regular system of differencing has survived in France, and whilst outside the Royal Family arms in that country show comparatively few examples of difference marks, the system as regards the French Royal Arms was well observed and approximated closely to our own. The Dauphin of France bore the Royal Arms undifferenced but never alone, they being always quartered with the sovereign arms of his personal sovereignty of Dauphiné: "Or, a dolphin embowed azure, finned gules." This has been more fully referred to on page 254. It is much to be regretted that the arms of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales do not include the arms of his sovereignty of the Duchy of Cornwall, nor any allusion to his dignities of Prince of Wales or Earl of Chester. [Illustration: FIG. 698.--Seal of Elizabeth, widow of Philip, Duke of Orleans.] The arms of the Dukes of Orleans were the arms of France differenced by a label argent. This is to be observed, for example, upon the seal (Fig. 698) of the Duchess Charlotte Elizabeth of Orleans, widow of Philip of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV. of France. She was a daughter of the Elector Charles Louis. The arms of the old Dukes of Anjou were the ancient coat of France (azure, semé-de-lis or) differenced by a label of five points gules, but the younger house {487} of Anjou bore the modern arms of France differenced by a bordure gules. The Dukes d'Alençon also used the bordure gules, but charged this with eight plates, whilst the Dukes de Berri used a bordure _engrailed_ gules. The Counts d'Angoulême used the arms of the Dukes of Orleans, adding a crescent gules on each point of the label, whilst the Counts d'Artois used France (ancient) differenced by a label gules, each point charged with three castles (towers) or. The rules which govern the marks of cadency at present in England are as follows, and it should be carefully borne in mind that the Scottish system bears no relation whatever to the English system. The eldest son during the lifetime of his father differences his arms by a label of three points couped at the ends. This is placed in the centre chief point of the escutcheon. There is no rule as to its colour, which is left to the pleasure of the bearer; but it is usually decided as follows: (1) That it shall not be metal on metal, or colour on colour; (2) that it shall not be argent or white; and, if possible, that it shall differ from any colour or metal in which any component part of the shield is depicted. Though anciently the label was drawn throughout the shield, this does not now seem to be a method officially adopted. At any rate drawn throughout it apparently obtains no official countenance for the arms of subjects, though many of the best heraldic artists always so depict it. The eldest son bears this label during his father's lifetime, succeeding to the undifferenced shield on the death of his father. His children--being the grandchildren of the then head of the house--difference upon the label, but such difference marks are, like their father's, only contemporary with the life of the grandfather, and, immediately upon the succession of their father, the children remove the label, and difference upon the original arms. The use of arms by a junior grandson is so restricted in ordinary life that to all intents and purposes this may be ignored, except in the case of the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent, _i.e._ of the grandson in the lifetimes of his father and grandfather. In his case one label of _five_ points is used, and to place a label upon a label is not correct when both are marks of cadency, and not charges. But the grandson on the death of his father, during the lifetime of the grandfather, and when the grandson succeeds as heir-apparent of the grandfather, succeeds also to the label of three points, which may therefore more properly be described as the difference mark of the heir-apparent than the difference mark of the eldest son. It is necessary, perhaps, having said this, to add the remark that heraldry knows no such thing as disinheritance, and heirship is an inalienable matter of blood descent, and not of worldly inheritance. No woman can ever be an heir-apparent. Though now {488} the number of points on a label is a matter of rule, this is far from having been always the case, and prior to the Stuart period no deductions can be drawn with certainty from the number of the points in use. It seems a very great pity that no warrants were issued for the children of the then Duke of York during the lifetime of Queen Victoria, as labels for _great_-grandchildren would have been quite unique. If the eldest son succeeds through the death of his mother to her arms and quarterings during his father's lifetime, he must be careful that the label which he bears as heir-apparent to his father's arms does not cross the quartering of his mother's arms. If his father bears a quarterly shield, the label is so placed that it shall apparently debruise all his father's quarterings, _i.e._ in a shield quarterly of four the label would be placed in the centre chief point, the centre file of the label being upon the palar line, and the other files in the first and second quarters respectively, whilst the colour would usually depend, as has been above indicated, upon the tinctures of the pronominal arms. Due regard, however, must be had that a label of gules, for example, is not placed on a field of gules. A parti-coloured label is not nowadays permissible, though instances of its use can occasionally be met with in early examples. Supposing the field of the first quarter is argent, and that of the second azure, in all probability the best colour for the label would be gules, and indeed gules is the colour most frequently met with for use in this purpose. If the father possess the quarterly coat of, say, four quarterings, which are debruised by a label by the heir-apparent, and the mother die, and the heir-apparent succeed to her arms, he would of course, after his father's death, arrange his mother's quarterings with these, placing his father's pronominal arms 1 and 4, the father's quartering in the second quarter, and the mother's arms in the third quarter. This arrangement, however, is not permissible during his father's lifetime, because otherwise his label in chief would be held to debruise _all_ the four coats, and the only method in which such a combination could be properly displayed in the lifetime of the father but after the death of his mother is to place the father's arms in the grand quartering in the first and fourth quarters, each being debruised by the label, and the mother's in the grand quartering in the second and third quarters without any interference by the label. The other marks of difference are: For the second son a crescent; for the third son a mullet; for the fourth son a martlet; for the fifth son an annulet; for the sixth son a fleur-de-lis; for the seventh son a rose; for the eighth son a cross moline; for the ninth son a double quatrefoil (Fig. 699). Of these the first six are given in BOSSEWELL'S "Workes of {489} Armorie" (1572), and the author adds: "If there be any more than six brethren the devise or assignment of further difference only appertaineth to the kingis of armes especially when they visite their severall provinces; and not to the father of the children to give them what difference he list, as some without authoritie doe allege." [Illustration: FIG. 699.--The English marks of cadency.] The position for a mark of difference is in the centre chief point, though it is not incorrect (and many such instances will be found) for it to be charged on a chevron or fess, in the centre point. This, however, is not a very desirable position for it in a simple coat of arms. The second son of the second son places a crescent upon a crescent, the third son a mullet on a crescent, the fourth son a martlet on a crescent, and so on; and there is an instance in the Visitation of London in which the arms of Cokayne appear with _three_ crescents one upon another: this instance has been already referred to on page 344. Of course, when the English system is carried to these lengths it becomes absurd, because the crescents charged one upon each other become so small as to be practically indistinguishable. There are, however, very few cases in which such a display would be correct--as will be presently explained. This difficulty, which looms large in theory, amounts to very little in the practical use of armory, but it nevertheless is the one outstanding objection to the English system of difference marks. It is constantly held up to derision by those people who are unaware of the next rule upon the subject, which is, that as soon as a quartering comes into the possession of a cadet branch--which quartering is not enjoyed by the head of the house--all necessity for any marks of difference at all is considered to be ended, provided that that quartering is always displayed--and that cadet branch then begins afresh from that generation to redifference. Now there are few English families in whose pedigree during three or four generations one marriage is not with an heiress in blood, so that this theoretical difficulty very quickly disappears. No doubt there is always an inducement to retain the quarterings of an historical or illustrious house which may have been brought in in the past, but if the honours and lands brought in with that quartering are wholly enjoyed by the head of the house, it becomes, from a practical point of view, mere affectation to prefer that quartering to another (brought in subsequently) of a family, the entire representation of which belongs to the junior branch and not to the senior. If {490} the old idea of confining a shield to four quarters be borne in mind, concurrently with the necessity--for purposes of distinction--of introducing new quarterings, the new quarterings take the place of the old, the use of which is left to the senior branch. Under such circumstances, and the regular practice of them, the English system is seldom wanting, and it at once wipes out the difficulty which is made much of--that under the English system there is no way of indicating the difference between the arms of uncle and nephew. If the use of impalements is also adhered to, the difficulty practically vanishes. To difference a _single_ coat the mark of difference is placed in the centre chief point; to difference a _quarterly_ coat of four quarters the same position on the shield is most generally used, the mark being placed over the palar line, though occasionally the difference mark is placed, and not incorrectly, in the centre of the quarterings. A coat of six quarters, however, is always differenced on the fess line of partition, the mark being placed in the fess point, because if placed in the centre chief point it would only appear as a difference upon the second quartering, so that on all shields of six or more quarterings the difference mark must be placed on some line of partition at the nearest possible point to the true centre fess point of the escutcheon. It is then understood to difference the whole of the quarterings over which it is displayed, but directly a quartering is introduced which has been inherited subsequently to the cadency which produced the difference mark, that difference mark must be either discarded or transferred to the first quartering only. _The use of these difference marks is optional._ Neither officially nor unofficially is any attempt made to enforce their use in England--they are left to the pleasure and discretion of the bearers, though it is a well-understood and well-accepted position that, unless differenced by quarterings or impalement, it is neither courteous nor proper for a cadet to display the arms of the head of his house: beyond this, the matter is usually left to good taste. There is, however, one position in which the use of difference marks is compulsory. If under a Royal Licence, or other exemplification--for instance, the creation of a peerage--a difference mark is painted upon the arms, or even if an exemplification of the arms differenced is placed at the head of an official record of pedigree, those arms would not subsequently be exemplified, or their use officially admitted, without the difference mark that has been recorded with them. The differencing of crests for cadency is very rare. Theoretically, these should be marked equally with the shield, and when arms are exemplified officially under the circumstances above referred to, crest, {491} [Illustration: FIG. 700.--King John, before his accession to the throne. (From MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)] [Illustration: FIG. 701.--Edmund "Crouchback," Earl of Lancaster, second son of Henry III. (From his tomb.) His arms are elsewhere given: De goules ove trois leopardes passantz dor, et lambel dazure florete d'or.] [Illustration: FIG. 702.--Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, d. 1322 (son of preceding): England with a label azure, each point charged with three fleurs-de-lis. (From his seal, 1301.)] [Illustration: FIG. 703.--Henry of Lancaster, 1295-1324 (brother of preceding, before he succeeded his brother as Earl of Lancaster): England with a bend azure. (From his seal, 1301.) After 1324 he bore England with a label as his brother.] [Illustration: FIG. 704.--Henry, Duke of Lancaster, son of preceding. (From his seal, 1358.)] [Illustration: FIG. 705.--Edward of Carnarvon, Prince of Wales (afterwards Edward II.), bore before 1307: England with a label azure. (From his seal, 1305.)] [Illustration: FIG. 706.--John of Eltham (second son of Edward II.): England with a bordure of the arms of France. (From his tomb.)] [Illustration: FIG. 707.--Arms of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, 3rd son of Edward I.: England within a bordure argent. The same arms were borne by his descendant, Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent.] [Illustration: FIG. 708.--Arms of John de Holand, Duke of Exeter (d. 1400): England, a bordure of France. (From his seal, 1381.)] {492} supporters, and shield are all equally differenced, but the difficulty of adding difference mark on difference mark when no marriage or heiress can ever bring in any alteration to the crest is very generally recognised and admitted, even officially, and it is rare indeed to come across a crest carrying more than a single difference mark. The grant of an augmentation to any cadet obviates the slightest necessity for any further use of difference marks inherited before the grant. There are no difference marks whatever for daughters, there being in English common law no seniority between the different daughters of one man. They succeed equally, whether heiresses or not, to the arms of their father for use during their lifetimes, and they must bear them on their own lozenges or impaled on the shields of their husbands, with the difference marks which their father needed to use. It would be permissible, however, to discard these difference marks of their fathers if subsequently to his death his issue succeeded to the position of head of the family. For instance, suppose the daughters of the younger son of an earl are under consideration. They would bear upon lozenges the arms of their father, which would be those of the earl, charged with the mullet or crescent which their father had used as a younger son. If by the extinction of issue the brother of these daughters succeed to the earldom, they would no longer be required to bear their father's difference mark. There are no marks of difference between illegitimate children. In the eye of the law an illegitimate person has no relatives, and stands alone. Supposing it be subsequently found that a marriage ceremony had been illegal, the whole issue of that marriage becomes of course illegitimate. As such, no one of them is entitled to bear arms. A Royal Licence, and exemplification following thereupon, is necessary for each single one. Of these exemplifications there is one case on record in which I think nine follow each other on successive pages of one of the Grant Books: all differ in some way--usually in the colour of the bordure; but the fact that there are illegitimate brothers of the same parentage does not prevent the descendants of any daughter quartering the differenced coat exemplified to her. As far as heraldic law is concerned, she is the heiress of herself, representing only herself, and consequently her heir quarters her arms. Marks of difference are never added to an exemplification following upon a Royal Licence _after illegitimacy_. Marks of difference are to indicate cadency, and there is no cadency vested in a person of illegitimate birth--their right to the arms proceeding only from the regrant of them in the exemplification. What is added in lieu is the _mark of distinction_ to indicate the bastardy. {493} [Illustration: FIG. 709.--John de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal.)] [Illustration: FIG. 710.--Henry de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1455.)] [Illustration: FIG. 711.--Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, second son of Edward I.: Arms of England, a label of three points argent.] [Illustration: FIG. 712.--Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1400). (From a drawing of his seal, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii., f. 166.) Arms, see page 465.] [Illustration: FIG. 713.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1432): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his Garter plate.)] [Illustration: FIG. 714.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his seal.)] [Illustration: FIG. 715.--Edward the Black Prince: Quarterly, 1 and 4 France (ancient); 2 and 3 England, and a label of three points argent. (From his tomb.)] [Illustration: FIG. 716.--Richard, Prince of Wales (afterwards Richard II.), son of preceding: Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1377.)] [Illustration: FIG. 717.--Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of King Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, each point charged with three torteaux. (From his seal, 1391.) His son, Edward, Earl of Cambridge, until he succeeded his father, _i.e._ before 1462, bore the same with an additional difference of a bordure of Spain (Fig. 316). Vincent attributes to him, however, a label as Fig. 719, which possibly he bore after his father's death.] {494} The method of differencing the English Royal Arms is quite unique, and has no relation to the method ordinarily in use in this country for the arms of subjects. The Royal Arms are not personal. They are the sovereign arms of dominion, indicating the sovereignty enjoyed by the person upon the throne. Consequently they are in no degree hereditary, and from the earliest times, certainly since the reign of Edward I., the right to bear the undifferenced arms has been confined exclusively to the sovereign upon the throne. In early times there were two methods employed, namely, the use of the bordure and of varieties of the label, the label of the heir-apparent to the English throne being originally of azure. The arms of Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward I., were differenced by a bordure argent; his elder brother, Thomas de Brotherton, having had a label of three points argent; whilst the eldest son, Edward II., as Prince of Wales used a label of three points azure. From that period to the end of the Tudor period the use of labels and bordures seems to have continued concurrently, some members of the Royal Family using one, some the other, though there does not appear to have been any precise rules governing a choice between the two. When Edward III. claimed the throne of France and quartered the arms of that country with those of England, of course a portion of the field then became azure, and a blue label upon a blue field was no longer possible. The heir-apparent therefore differenced his shield by the plain label of three points argent, and this has ever since, down to the present day, continued to be the "difference" used by the heir-apparent to the English throne. A label of gules upon the gules quartering of England was equally impossible, and consequently from that period all labels used by any member of the Royal Family have been argent, charged with different objects, these being frequently taken from the arms of some female ancestor. Figs. 700 to 730 are a somewhat extensive collection of variations of the Royal Arms. Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., bore: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, and on each point a canton gules. The use of the bordure as a legitimate difference upon the Royal Arms ceased about the Tudor period, and differencing between members of the Royal Family is now exclusively done by means of these labels. A few cases of bordures to denote illegitimacy can, however, be found. The method of deciding these labels is for separate warrants under the hand and seal of the sovereign to be issued to the different members of the Royal Family, assigning to each a certain coronet, and the label to be borne over the Royal Arms, crest, and supporters. These warrants are personal to those for whom they are {495} [Illustration: FIG. 718.--Richard, Duke of York (son of Edward, Earl of Cambridge and Duke of York): Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1436.)] [Illustration: FIG. 719.--Referred to under Fig. 717.] [Illustration: FIG. 720.--Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, seventh son of Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a bordure argent. (From a drawing of his seal, 1391, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)] [Illustration: FIG. 721.--Henry of Monmouth, afterwards Henry V.: France (modern) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent. (From his seal.)] [Illustration: FIG. 722.--Richard, Duke of Gloucester (afterwards Richard III.): A label of three points ermine, on each point a canton gules.] [Illustration: FIG. 723.--Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, fourth son of Henry IV.: France (modern) and England quarterly, a bordure argent. (From his seal.)] [Illustration: FIG. 724.--John de Beaufort, Earl and Marquis of Somerset, son of John of Gaunt. Arms subsequent to his legitimation: France and England quarterly, within a bordure gobony azure and argent. Prior to his legitimation he bore: Per pale argent and azure (the livery colours of Lancaster), a bend of England (_i.e._ a bend gules charged with three lions passant guardant or) with a label of France.] [Illustration: FIG. 725.--Thomas, Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV. France and England quarterly, a label of three points ermine. (From his seal, 1413.)] [Illustration: FIG. 726.--George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV.: France and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, each charged with a canton gules. (From MS. Harl. 521.)] {496} issued, and are not hereditary. Of late their use, or perhaps may be their issue, has not been quite so particularly conformed to as is desirable, and at the present time the official records show the arms of their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and the Queen of Norway, still bearing the label of five points indicative of their position as grandchildren of the sovereign, which of course they were when the warrants were issued in the lifetime of the late Queen Victoria. In spite of the fact that the warrants have no hereditary limitation, I am only aware of two modern instances in which a warrant has been issued to the son of a cadet of the Royal House who had previously received a warrant. One of these was the late Duke of Cambridge. The warrant was issued to him in his father's lifetime, and to the label previously assigned to his father a second label of three points gules, to be borne directly below the other, was added. The other case was that of his cousin, afterwards Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover. In his case the second label, also gules, was charged with the white horse of Hanover. [Illustration: FIG. 727.--John, Duke of Bedford, third son of Henry IV.: France and England quarterly, a label of five points, the two dexter ermine, the three sinister azure, charged with three fleurs-de-lis or. (From MS. Add. 18,850.)] [Illustration: FIG. 728.--Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford: France and England quarterly, a bordure azure, charged with martlets or. (From his seal.) Although uncle of Henry VII., Jasper Tudor had no blood descent whatever which would entitle him to bear these arms. His use of them is very remarkable.] [Illustration: FIG. 729.--Thomas de Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, brother of John, Earl of Somerset (Fig. 724): France and England quarterly, a bordure compony ermine and azure. (From his Garter plate.)] [Illustration: FIG. 730.--John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, bore: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points _ermine_ (_i.e._ each point charged with three ermine spots).] The label of the eldest son of the heir-apparent to the English throne is not, as might be imagined, a plain label of five points, but the plain label of three points, the centre point only being charged. The late Duke of Clarence charged the centre point of his label of {497} three points with a cross couped gules. After his death the Duke of York relinquished the label of five points which he had previously borne, receiving one of three, the centre point charged with an anchor. In every other case all of the points are charged. The following examples of the labels in use at the moment will show how the system now exists:-- _Prince of Wales._--A label of three points argent. _Princess Royal_ (Louise, Duchess of Fife).--A label of five points argent, charged on the centre and outer points with a cross of St. George gules, and on the two others with a thistle proper. _Princess Victoria._--A label of five points argent, charged with three roses and two crosses gules. _Princess Maud_ (H.M. The Queen of Norway).--A label of five points argent, charged with three hearts and two crosses gules. _The Duke of Edinburgh_ (Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and on each of the others an anchor azure. His son, the hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who predeceased his father, bore a label of five points, the first, third, and fifth each charged with a cross gules, and the second and fourth each with an anchor azure (Fig. 731). [Illustration: FIG. 731.--Label of the late hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.] _The Duke of Connaught._--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points with a fleur-de-lis azure. _The late Princess Royal_ (German Empress).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others with a cross gules. _The late Grand Duchess of Hesse._--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, and each of the others with an ermine spot sable. _Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein._--A label of three points, the centre point charged with St. George's cross, and each of the other points with a rose gules. _Princess Louise_ (Duchess of Argyll).--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a rose, and each of the other two with a canton gules. _Princess Henry of Battenberg._--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a heart, and each of the other two with a rose gules. _The late Duke of Albany._--A label of three points, the centre point charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the other two with a heart gules. {498} _The Dukes of Cambridge._--The first Duke had a label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a St. George's cross, and each of the other two with _two_ hearts in pale gules. The warrant to the late Duke assigned him the same label with the addition of a second label, plain, of three points gules, to be borne below the former label. _The first Duke of Cumberland._--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a fleur-de-lis azure, and each of the other two points with a cross of St. George gules. Of the foregoing recently assigned labels all are borne over the plain English arms (1 and 4 England, 2 Scotland, 3 Ireland), charged with the escutcheon of Saxony, except those of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Cambridge, and Cumberland. In the two latter cases the labels are borne over the _latest_ version of the arms of King George III., _i.e._ with the inescutcheon of Hanover, but, of course, neither the electoral bonnet nor the later crown which surmounted the inescutcheon of Hanover was made use of, and the smaller inescutcheon bearing the crown of Charlemagne was also omitted for the children of George III., except in the case of the Prince of Wales, who bore the plain inescutcheon of gules, but without the crown of Charlemagne thereupon. The labels for the other sons and daughters of King George III. were as follows:-- _The Duke of York._--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules. The Duke of York bore upon the inescutcheon of Hanover an inescutcheon argent (in the place occupied in the Royal Arms by the inescutcheon charged with the crown of Charlemagne) charged with a wheel of six spokes gules, for the Bishopric of Osnaburgh, which he possessed. _The Duke of Clarence_ (afterwards William IV.).--A label of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and each of the others with an anchor erect azure. _The Duke of Kent_ had his label charged with a cross gules between two fleurs-de-lis azure. _The Duke of Sussex._--The label argent charged with two hearts in pale gules in the centre point between two crosses gules. _The Princess Royal_ (Queen of Würtemberg).--A rose between two crosses gules. _The Princess Augusta._--A like label, charged with a rose gules between two ermine spots. _The Princess Elizabeth_ (Princess of Hesse-Homburg).--A like label charged with a cross between two roses gules. _The Princess Mary_ (Duchess of Gloucester).--A like label, charged with a rose between two cantons gules. {499} _The Princess Sophia._--A like label, charged with a heart between two roses gules. _The Princess Amelia._--A like label, charged with a rose between two hearts gules. _The Duke of Gloucester_ (brother of George III.).--A label of _five_ points argent, charged with a fleur-de-lis azure between four crosses gules. His son (afterwards Duke of Gloucester) bore an additional plain label of three points during the lifetime of his father. The Royal labels are placed across the shield, on the crest, and on each of the supporters. The crest stands upon and is crowned with a coronet identical with the circlet of any coronet of rank assigned in the same patent; the lion supporter is crowned and the unicorn supporter is gorged with a similar coronet. It may perhaps be of interest to note that no badges and no motto are ever now assigned in these Royal Warrants except in the case of the Prince of Wales. F.-M. H.S.H. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the Consort of H.R.H. the Princess Charlotte (only child of George IV.), received by warrant dated April 7, 1818, the right "to use and bear the Royal Arms (without the inescocheon of Charlemagne's crown, and without the Hanoverian Royal crown) differenced with a label of five points argent, the centre point charged with a rose gules, quarterly with the arms of his illustrious House ['Barry of ten sable and or, a crown of rue in bend vert'], the Royal Arms in the first and fourth quarters." By Queen Victoria's desire this precedent was followed in the case of the late Prince Consort, the label in his case being of three points argent, the centre point charged with a cross gules, and, by a curious coincidence, the arms of his illustrious House, with which the Royal Arms were quartered, were again the arms of Saxony, these appearing in the second and third quarters. Quite recently a Royal Warrant has been issued for H.M. Queen Alexandra. This assigns, upon a single shield within the Garter, the undifferenced arms of His Majesty impaled with the undifferenced arms of Denmark. The shield is surmounted by the Royal crown. The supporters are: (dexter) the lion of England, and (sinister) a savage wreathed about the temples and loins with oak and supporting in his exterior hand a club all proper. This sinister supporter is taken from the Royal Arms of Denmark. Abroad there is now no equivalent whatever to our methods of differencing the Royal Arms. An official certificate was issued to me recently from Denmark of the undifferenced Royal Arms of Denmark certified as correct for the "Princes and Princesses" of that country. But the German Crown Prince bears his shield within a bordure gules, and anciently in France (from which country the English system was {500} very probably originally derived) the differencing of the Royal French Arms for the younger branches seems to have been carefully attended to, as has been already specified. Differencing in Scotland is carried out on an entirely different basis from differencing in England. In Scotland the idea is still rigidly preserved and adhered to that the coat of arms of a family belongs only to the head of the family for the time being, and the terms of a Scottish grant are as follows: "Know ye therefore that we have devised and do by these presents assign ratify and confirm to the said ---- and his descendants _with such congruent differences as may hereafter be matriculated for them the following ensigns armorial_." Under the accepted interpretation of Scottish armorial law, whilst the inherent gentility conferred by a patent of arms is not denied to cadets, no right to make use of arms is conceded to them until such time as they shall elect to matriculate the arms of their ancestor in their own names. This point has led to a much purer system of heraldry in Scotland than in England, and there is far less heraldic abuse in that country as a result, because the differences are decided not haphazardly by the user himself, as is the case in England, but by a competent officer of arms. Moreover the constant occasions of matriculation bring the arms frequently under official review. There is no fixed rule which decides _ipse facto_ what difference shall be borne, and consequently this decision has retained in the hands of the heraldic executive an amount of control which they still possess far exceeding that of the executive in England, and perhaps the best way in which to state the rules which hold good will be to reprint a portion of one of the Rhind Lectures, delivered by Sir James Balfour Paul, which is devoted to the point:-- "I have said that in Scotland the principle which limited the number of paternal coats led to a careful differencing of these coats as borne by the junior branches of the family. Though the English system was sometimes used, it has never obtained to any great extent in Scotland, the practice here being generally to difference by means of a bordure, in which way many more generations are capable of being distinguished than is possible by the English method. The weak point of the Scottish system is that, whilst the general idea is good, there is no definite rule whereby it can be carried out on unchanging lines; much is left to the discretion of the authorities. "As a general rule, it may be stated that the second son bears a plain bordure of the tincture of the principal charge in the shield, and his younger brothers also bear plain bordures of varying tinctures. In the next generation the eldest son of the second son would bear his father's coat and bordure without change; the second son would have the bordure engrailed; the third, invected; the fourth, indented, {501} and so on, the other sons of the younger sons in this generation differencing their father's bordures in the same way. The junior members of the next generation might have their bordures parted per pale, the following generations having their bordures parted per fess and per saltire, per cross or quarterly, gyronny or compony, that is, divided into alternate spaces of metal or colour in a single trace--this, however, being often in Scotland a mark of illegitimacy--counter-compone or a similar pattern in two tracts, or chequy with three or more tracts. "You will see that these modifications of the simple bordure afford a great variety of differences, and when they are exhausted the expedient can then be resorted to of placing on the bordures charges taken from other coats, often from those of a maternal ancestor; or they may be arbitrarily assigned to denote some personal characteristic of the bearer, as in the case of James Maitland, Major in the Scots regiment of Foot Guards, who carries the dismembered lion of his family within a bordure wavy azure charged with eight hand grenades or, significant, I presume, of his military profession. "You will observe that, with all these varieties of differencing we have mentioned, the younger branches descending from the original eldest son of the parent house are still left unprovided with marks of cadency. These, however, can be arranged for by taking the ordinary which appears in their father's arms and modifying its boundary lines. Say the original coat was 'argent, a chevron gules,' the second son of the eldest son would have the chevron engrailed, but without any bordure; the third, invected, and so on; and the next generations the systems of bordures accompanying the modified chevron would go on as before. And when all these methods are exhausted, differences can still be made in a variety of ways, _e.g._ by charging the ordinary with similar charges in a similar manner to the bordure as Erskine of Shielfield, a cadet of Balgownie, who bore: 'Argent, on a pale sable, a cross crosslet fitchée or within a bordure azure'; or by the introduction of an ordinary into a coat which had not one previously, a bend or the ribbon (which is a small bend) being a favourite ordinary to use for this purpose. Again, we occasionally find a change of tincture of the field of the shield used to denote cadency. "There are other modes of differencing which need not be alluded to in detail, but I may say that on analysing the earlier arms in the Lyon Register, I find that the bordure is by far the most common method of indicating cadency, being used in no less than 1080 cases. The next most popular way is by changing the boundary lines of an ordinary, which is done in 563 shields; 233 cadets difference their arms by the insertion of a smaller charge on the ordinary and 195 on {502} the shield. A change of tincture, including counterchanging, is carried out in 155 coats, and a canton is added in 70 cases, while there are 350 coats in which two or more of the above methods are used. From these figures, which are approximately correct, you will see the relative frequency of the various modes of differencing. You will also note that the original coat of a family can be differenced in a great many ways so as to show the connection of cadets with the parent house. The drawback to the system is that heralds have never arrived at a uniform treatment so as to render it possible to calculate the exact relationship of the cadets. Much is left, as I said, to the discretion of the officer granting the arms; but still it gives considerable assistance in determining the descent of a family." The late Mr. Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute, who was an able herald, particularly in matters relating to Scotland, had elaborated a definite system of these bordures for differencing which would have done much to simplify Scottish cadency. Its weak point was obviously this, that it could only be applied to new matriculations of arms by cadets; and so, if adopted as a definite and unchangeable matter of rule, it might have occasioned doubt and misunderstanding in future times with regard to many important Scottish coats now existing, without reference to Mr. Stodart's system. But the scheme elaborated by Mr. Stodart is now accepted as the broad basis of the Scottish system for matriculations (Fig. 732). In early Scottish seals the bordures are to so large an extent engrailed as to make it appear that the later and present rule, which gives the plain bordure to immediate cadets, was not fully recognised or adopted. Bordures charged appear at a comparatively early date in Scotland. The bordure compony in Scotland and the bordure wavy in England, which are now used to signify illegitimacy, will be further considered in a subsequent chapter, but neither one nor the other originally carried any such meaning. The doubtful legitimacy of the Avondale and Ochiltree Stewarts, who bore the bordure compony in Scotland, along with its use by the Beauforts in England, has tended latterly to bring that difference into disrepute in the cadency of lawful sons--yet some of the bearers of that bordure during the first twenty years of the Lyon Register were unquestionably legitimate, whilst others, as SCOTT of Gorrenberry and PATRICK SINCLAIR of Ulbester, were illegitimate, or at best only legitimated. The light in which the bordure compony had come to be regarded is shown by a Royal Warrant granted in 1679 to JOHN LUNDIN of that Ilk, allowing him to drop the coat which his family had hitherto carried, and, as descended of a natural son of WILLIAM THE LION, to bear the arms of Scotland within a bordure compony argent and azure. {503} The bordure counter-compony is assigned to fifteen persons, none of them, it is believed, of illegitimate descent, and some expressly said to be "lineallie and lawfulie descended" from the ancestor whose arms they bore thus differenced. The idea of this bordure having been at any time a mark of bastardy is a very modern error, arising from a confusion with the bordure compony. [Illustration: FIG. 732.--The scheme of Cadency Bordures devised by Mr. Stodart.] In conclusion, attention needs to be pointedly drawn to the fact that all changes in arms are not due to cadency, nor is it safe always to presume cadency from proved instances of change. Instead of merely detailing isolated instances of variation in a number of different families, the matter may be better illustrated by closely following the successive variations in the same family, and an instructive instance is met with in the case of the arms of the family of Swinton of that Ilk. This is peculiarly instructive, because at no point in the descent covered by the arms referred to is there any doubt or question as to the fact of legitimate descent. Claiming as they do a male descent and inheritance from Liulf the son of Edulf, Vicecomes of Northumbria, whose possession before {504} 1100 of the lands of Swinton is the earliest contemporary evidence which has come down to us of landowning by a Scottish subject, it is unfortunate that we cannot with authority date their armorial ensigns before the later half of the thirteenth century. Charters there are in plenty. Out of the twenty-three earliest Scottish writings given in the National MSS. of Scotland, nine, taken from the Coldingham documents preserved at Durham, refer to the village and lands of Swinton. Among these are two confirmations by David I., _i.e._ before 1153, of Swinton "in hereditate sibi et heredibus" to "meo militi Hernulfo" or "Arnolto isti meo Militi," the first of the family to follow the Norman fashion, and adopt the territorial designation of de Swinton; while at Durham and elsewhere, Cospatric de Swinton and his son Alan and grandson Alan appear more than eighty times in charters before 1250. [Illustration: FIG. 733.--Seal of Alan de Swinton, _c._ 1271.] But it is not till we come to _c._ 1271 that we find a Swinton seal still attached to a charter. This is a grant by a third Alan of the Kirk croft of Lower Swinton to God and the blessed Cuthbert and the blessed Ebba and the Prior and Monks of Coldingham. The seal is of a very early form (Fig. 733), and may perhaps have belonged to the father and grandfather of the particular Alan who uses it. Of the Henry de Swinton who came next, and who swore fealty to Edward the First of England at Berwick in 1296, and of yet a fourth Alan, no seals are known. These were turbulent days throughout Scotland: but then we find a distinct advance; a shield upon a diapered ground, and upon it the single boar has given place to the three boars' heads which afterwards became so common in Scotland. Nisbet lends his authority to the tradition that all the families of Border birth who carried them--Gordon, Nisbet, Swinton, Redpath, Dunse, he mentions, and he might have added others--were originally of one stock, and if so, the probability must be that the breed sprung from Swinton. [Illustration: FIG. 734.--Seal of Henry de Swinton, 1378.] This seal (Fig. 734) was put by a second Henry de Swynton to one of the family charters, probably of the date of 1378, which have lately been placed for safe keeping in the Register House in Edinburgh. His successor, Sir John, the hero of Noyon in Picardy, of Otterburn, and Homildon, was apparently the first of the race to use {505} supporters. His seal (Fig. 735) belongs to the second earliest of the Douglas charters preserved at Drumlanrig. Its date is 1389, and Sir John de Swintoun is described as Dominus de Mar, a title he bore by right of his marriage with Margaret, Countess of Douglas and Mar. This probably also accounts for his coronet, and it is interesting to note that the helmet, coronet, and crest are the exact counterpart of those on the Garter plate of Ralph, Lord Basset, in St. George's Chapel at Windsor. It is possibly more than a coincidence, for Froissart mentions them both as fighting in France ten to twenty years earlier. [Illustration: FIG. 735.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1389.] [Illustration: FIG. 736.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1475.] [Illustration: FIG. 737.--Seal of Robert Swinton, of that Ilk, 1598.] [Illustration: FIG. 738.--Arms of Swinton. (From Swinton Church, 163-.)] Of his son, the second Sir John, "Lord of that Ilk," we have no seal. His lance it was that overthrew Thomas, Duke of Clarence, the brother of Henry V., at Beaugé in 1421, and he fell, a young man, three years later with the flower of the Scottish army at Verneuil; but in 1475 his son, a third Sir John, uses the identical crest and shield which his descendants carry to this day (Fig. 736). John had become a common name in the family, and the same or a similar seal did duty for the next three generations; but in 1598 we find the great-great-grandson, Robert Swinton of that Ilk, who represented Berwickshire in the first regularly constituted Parliament of Scotland, altering the character of the boars' heads (Fig. 737). He would also appear to have placed upon the chevron something which is difficult to decipher, but is probably the rose so borne by the Hepburns, his second wife having been a daughter of Sir Patrick Hepburn of Whitecastle. Whatever the charge was, it disappeared from the shield (Fig. 738) erected on the outer wall of Swinton Church by his second son and eventual heir, Sir Alexander, also member for his native county; but {506} the boars' heads are turned the other way, perhaps in imitation of those above the very ancient effigy of the first Sir Alan inside the church. Sir Alexander's son, John Swinton, "Laird Swinton" Carlyle calls him, wrecked the family fortunes. According to Bishop Burnet he was "the man of all Scotland most trusted and employed by Cromwell," and he died a Quaker, excommunicated and forfeited. To the circumstance that when, in 1672, the order went out that all arms were to be officially recorded, he was a broken man under sentence that his arms should be "laceret and delete out of the Heralds' Books," we probably owe it that until of late years no Swinton arms appeared on the Lyon Register. [Illustration: FIG. 739.--Bookplate of Sir John Swinton of that Ilk, 1707.] [Illustration: FIG. 740.--Bookplate of Archibald Swinton of Kimmerghame.] Then to come to less stirring times, and turn to book-plates. His son, yet another Sir John of that Ilk, in whose favour the forfeiture was rescinded, sat for Berwickshire in the last Parliament of Scotland and the first of Great Britain. His bookplate (Fig. 739) is one of the earliest Scottish dated plates. His grandson, Captain Archibald Swinton of Kimmerghame, county Berwick (Fig. 740), was an ardent book collector up to his death in 1804, and Archibald's great-grandson, Captain George C. Swinton (Fig. 741), walked as March Pursuivant in the procession in Westminster Abbey at the coronation of King Edward the Seventh of {507} England in 1902, and smote on the gate when that same Edward as First of Scotland claimed admission to his castle of Edinburgh in 1903. [Illustration: FIG. 741.--Bookplate of Captain George S. Swinton, March Pursuivant of Arms.] The arms as borne to-day by the head of the family, John Edulf Blagrave Swinton of Swinton Bank, a lieutenant in the Lothians and Berwickshire Imperial Yeomanry, are as given (Plate IV.). {508}