A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 44

{337} rendered legal, without giving offence to those who had borne these arms merely by strength of user for some prolonged but at the same time insufficient period to confer an unquestioned right. That has always seemed to me the obvious reason which accounts for these numberless grants of crests to apparently existing arms, which arms are recited and emblazoned in the patents, because there are other grants of crests which can be referred to, though these are singularly few in number, in which the arms are entirely ignored. But as none of these grants, which are of a crest only, appear to have been made to families whose right to arms was not absolutely beyond question or dispute, the conclusion above recited appears to be irresistible. The result of these numerous grants of crests, which I look upon as carrying greater importance in the sense that they were also confirmations of the arms, resulted in the fact that the value and dignity of the crest slowly but steadily declined, and the cessation of tournaments and, shortly afterwards, the marked decline in funereal pageantry no doubt contributed largely to the same result. Throughout the Stuart period instances can be found, though not very frequently, of grants of arms without the grant of a crest being included in the patent; but the practice was soon to entirely cease, and roughly speaking one may a.s.sert that since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty no person has ever been granted arms without the corresponding grant of a crest, if a crest could be properly borne with the arms. Now no crest has ever been granted where the right to arms has not existed or been simultaneously conferred, and therefore, whilst there are still many coats of arms legally in existence without a crest, a crest cannot exist without a coat of arms, so that those people, and they are many, who vehemently a.s.sert a right to the "_crest_ of their family," whilst admitting they have no right to arms, stand self-convicted heraldically both of having spoken unutterable rubbish, and of using a crest to which they can have no possible right. One exception, and one only, have I ever come across to the contrary, and very careful inquiry can bring me knowledge of no other. That crest is the crest of a family of Buckworth, now represented by Sir Charles Buckworth-Herne-Soame, Bart. This family at the time of the Visitations exhibited a certain coat of arms and crest. The coat of arms, which doubtless interfered with the rights of some other family, was respited for further proof; but the crest, which did not, appears to have been allowed, and as nothing further was done with regard to the arms, the crest stood, whilst the arms were bad.

But even this one exception has long since been rectified, for when the additional name and arms of Soame were a.s.sumed by Royal License, the arms which had been exhibited and respited were (with the addition of an ermine spot as a charge upon the chevron) granted as the arms of Buckworth to be borne quarterly with the arms of Soame.

PLATE VI.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

{338}

With the cessation of tournaments, we get to the period which some writers have stigmatised as that of "paper" heraldry. That is a reference to the fact that arms and crests ceased to be painted upon shields or erected upon helmets that enjoyed actual use in battle and tournament. Those who are so ready to decry modern heraldry forget that from its very earliest existence heraldry has always had the _same_ significance as a symbol of rank and social position which it now enjoys and which remains undiminished in extent, though doubtless less potent in effect. They forget also that from the very earliest period armory had three uses--viz. its martial use, its decorative use, and its use as a symbol of ownership. The two latter uses still remain in their entirety, and whilst that is the case, armory cannot be treated as a dead science.

But with the cessation of tournaments the decorative became the chief use of arms, and the crest soon ceased to have that distinctive adaptability to the purpose of a helmet ornament. Up to the end of the Tudor period crests had retained their original simplicity. Animals' heads and animals pa.s.sant, human heads and demi-animals, comprised the large majority of the early crests. Scottish heraldry in a marked degree has retained the early simplicity of crests, though at the expense of lack of distinction between the crests of different families. German heraldry has to a large extent retained the same character as has Scottish armory, and though many of the crests are decidedly elaborated, it is noticeable that this elaboration is never such as to render the crest unsuitable for its true position upon a helmet.

In England this aspect of the crest has been almost entirely lost sight of, and a large proportion of the crests in modern English grants are utterly unsuitable for use in relief upon an actual helmet. Our present rules of position for a helmet, and our unfortunate stereotyped form of wreath, are largely to blame, but the chief reason is the definite English rule that the crests of separate English families must be differentiated as are the arms. No such rule holds good in Scotland, hence their simple crests.

Whether the rule is good or bad it is difficult to say. When all the pros and cons have been taken into consideration, the whole discussion remains a matter of opinion, and whilst one dislikes the Scottish idea under which the same identical crest can be and regularly is granted to half-a-dozen people of as many different surnames, one objects very considerably to the typical present-day crest of an English grant of arms. Whilst a collar can be put round an animal's neck, and whilst it can hold objects in its mouth or paws, it does seem {339} ridiculous to put a string of varied and selected objects "in front" of it, when these plainly would only be visible from one side, or to put a crest "between" objects if these are to be represented "fore and aft," one toppling over the brow of the wearer of the helmet and the other hanging down behind.

The crests granted by the late Sir Albert Woods, Garter, are the crying grievance of modern English heraldry, and though a large proportion are far greater abortions than they need be, and though careful thought and research even yet will under the present regime result in the grant of at any rate a quite un.o.bjectionable crest, nevertheless we shall not obtain a real reform, or attain to any appreciable improvement, until the "position"

rule as to helmets is abolished. Some of the crests mentioned hereunder are typical and awful examples of modern crests.

Crest of Bellasis of Marton, Westmoreland: A mount vert, thereon a lion couchant guardant azure, in front of a tent proper, lined gules.

Crest of Hermon of Preston, Lancashire, and Wyfold Court, Checkendon, Oxon.: In front of two palm-trees proper, a lion couchant guardant erminois, resting the dexter claw upon a bale of cotton proper. Motto: "Fido non timeo."

Crest of James Harrison, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law: In front of a demi-lion rampant erased or, gorged with a collar gemelle azure, and holding between the paws a wreath of oak proper, three mascles interlaced also azure. Motto: "Pro rege et patria."

Crest of Colonel John Davis, F.S.A., of Bifrons, Hants: A lion's head erased sable, charged with a caltrap or, upon two swords in saltire proper, hilted and pommelled also or. Motto: "Ne tentes, aut perfice."

Crest of the late Sir Saul Samuel, Bart., K.C.M.G.: Upon a rock in front of three spears, one in pale and two in saltire, a wolf current sable, pierced in the breast by an arrow argent, flighted or. Motto: "A pledge of better times."

Crest of Jonson of Kennal Manor, Chislehurst, Kent: In front of a dexter arm embowed in armour proper, the hand also proper, grasping a javelin in bend sinister, pheoned or, and enfiled with a chaplet of roses gules, two branches of oak in saltire vert.

Crest of C. E. Lamplugh, Esq.: In front of a cubit arm erect proper, encircled about the wrist with a wreath of oak and holding in the hand a sword also proper, pommel and hilt or, an escutcheon argent, charged with a goat's head couped sable. Mottoes: "Through," and "Providentia Dei stabiliuntur familiae."

Crest of Glasford, Scotland: "Issuing from clouds two hands conjoined grasping a caduceus ensigned with a cap of liberty, all between two cornucopiae all proper. Motto: "Prisca fides."

We now come to the subject of the inheritance of crests, concerning which there has been much difference of opinion.

It is very usually a.s.serted that until a comparatively recent date crests were not hereditary, but were a.s.sumed, discarded, and changed at pleasure.

Like many other incorrect statements, there is a certain modic.u.m of truth in the statement, for no doubt whilst arms themselves {340} had a more or less shifting character, crests were certainly not "fixed" to any greater extent.

But I think no one has as yet discovered, or at any rate brought into notice, the true facts of the case, or the real position of the matter, and I think I am the first to put into print what actually were the rules which governed the matter. The rules, I believe, were undoubtedly these:--

Crests were, save in the remote beginning of things heraldic, definitely hereditary. They were hereditary even to the extent (and herein lies the point which has not hitherto been observed) that they were transmitted by an heiress. Perhaps this heritability was limited to those cases in which the heiress transmitted the _de facto_ headship of her house. We, judging by present laws, look upon the crest as a part of the _one_ heraldic achievement inseparable from the shield. What proof have we that in early times any necessary connection between arms and crest existed? We have none. The shield of arms was one inheritance, descending by known rules.

The crest was another, but a separate inheritance, descending equally through an heir or coheir-general. The crest was, as an inheritance, as separate from the shield as were the estates then. The social conditions of life prevented the possibility of the existence or inheritance of a crest where arms did not exist. But a man inheriting several coats of arms from different heiress ancestresses could marshal them all upon one shield, and though we find the heir often made selection at his pleasure, and marshalled the arms in various methods, the determination of which was a mere matter of arbitrary choice, he could, if he wished, use them all upon one shield. But he had but one helmet, and could use and display but one crest. So that, if he had inherited two, he was forced to choose which he would use, though he sometimes tried to combine two into one device. It is questionable if an instance can be found in England of the regular display of two helmets and crests together, surmounting one shield, before the eighteenth century, but there are countless instances of the contemporary but separate display of two different crests, and the Visitation Records afford us some number of instances of this tacit acknowledgment of the inheritance of more than one crest.

The patent altering or granting the Mowbray crest seems to me clear recognition of the right of inheritance of a crest pa.s.sing through an heir female. This, however, it must be admitted, may be really no more than a grant, and is not in itself actual evidence that any crest had been previously borne. My own opinion, however, is that it is fair presumptive evidence upon the point, and conveys an alteration and not a grant.

The translation of this Patent (Patent Roll 339, 17 Ric. II. pt. 1, {341} memb. 2) is as follows: "The King to all to whom, &c., Greeting, Know that whereas our well-beloved and faithful kinsman, Thomas, Earl-Marshal and Earl of Nottingham, has a just hereditary t.i.tle to bear for his crest a leopard or with a white label, which should be of right the crest of our eldest son if we had begotten a son. We, for this consideration, have granted for us and our heirs to the said Thomas and his heirs that for a difference in this crest they shall and may bear a leopard, and in place of a label a crown argent, without hindrance from us or our heirs aforesaid.--In witness, &c. Witness the King at Westminster, the 12th day of January [17 Ric. II.]. By writ of Privy Seal."

Cases will constantly be found in which the crests have been changed. I necessarily totally exclude from consideration crests which have been changed owing to specific grants, and also changes due to the discarding of crests which can be shown to have been borne without right. Changes in crests must also be disregarded where the differences in emblazonment are merely differences in varying designs of the same crest. Necessarily from none of these instances can a law of inheritance be deduced. But if other changes in the crests of important families be considered, I think it will be very evident that practically the whole of these are due to the inheritance through heiresses or ancestresses of an alternative crest. It can be readily shown that selection played an important part in the marshalling of quarterings upon an escutcheon, and where important quarterings were inherited they are as often as not found depicted in the first quarter. Thus the Howards have borne at different periods the wings of Howard; the horse of Fitzalan; and the Royal crest granted to the Mowbrays with remainder to the heir general; and these crests have been borne, as will be seen from the Garter plates, quite irrespective of what the surname in use may have been. Consequently it is very evident the crests were considered to be inherited with the representation of the different families. The Stourton crest was originally a stag's head, and is to be seen recorded in one of the Visitations, and upon the earliest seal in existence of any member of the family. But after the inheritance through the heiress of Le Moyne, the Le Moyne crest of the demi-monk was adopted.

The Stanleys, Earls of Derby, whatever their original crest may have been, inherited the well-known bird and bantling of the family of Lathom. The Talbot crest was originally a talbot, and this is still so borne by Lord Talbot of Malahide: it was recorded at the Visitation of Dublin; but the crest at present borne by the Earls of Shrewsbury is derived from the arms inherited by descent from Gwendolin, daughter of Rhys ap Griffith. The Nevill crest was a bull's head as it is now borne by the Marquess {342} of Abergavenny, and as it will be seen on the Garter plate of William Nevill, Lord Fauconberg. An elder brother of Lord Fauconberg had married the heiress of the Earl of Salisbury, and was summoned to Parliament in her earldom. He quartered her arms, which appear upon his Garter plate and seal, in the first and fourth quarters of his shield, and adopted her crest. A younger son of Sir Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, bore the same crest differenced by two annulets conjoined, which was the difference mark added to the shield. The crest of Bourchier was a soldan's head crowned, and with a pointed cap issuing from the crown, but when the barony of Bourchier pa.s.sed to the family of Robsart, as will be seen from the Garter plate of Sir Lewis Robsart, Lord Bourchier, the crest of Bourchier was adopted with the inheritance of the arms and Barony of Bourchier.

I am aware of no important case in English heraldry where the change has been due to mere caprice, and it would seem therefore an almost incontrovertible a.s.sertion that changes were due to inheritance, and if that can be established it follows even more strongly that until the days when armory was brought under rigid and official control, and even until a much later date, say up to the beginning of the Stuart period, crests were heritable through heiresses equally with quarterings. The fact that we find comparatively few changes considering the number of crests in existence is by no means a refutation of this theory, because a man had but one helmet, and was forced therefore to make a selection. Unless, therefore, he had a very strong inclination it would be more likely that he would select the crest he was used to than a fresh one. I am by no means certain that to a limited extent the German idea did not hold in England. This was, and is, that the crest had not the same personal character that was the case with the arms, but was rather attached to or an appanage of the territorial fief or lordship. By the time of the Restoration any idea of the transmission of crests through heiresses had been abandoned. We then find a Royal License necessary for the a.s.sumption of arms and crests. Since that date it has been and at the present time it is stringently held, and is the official rule, that no woman can bear or inherit a crest, and that no woman can transmit a right to one. Whilst that is the official and accepted interpretation of heraldic law upon the point, and whilst it cannot now be gainsaid, it cannot, however, be stated that the one a.s.sertion is the logical deduction of the other, for whilst a woman cannot inherit a lordship of Parliament, she undoubtedly can transmit one, together with the t.i.tular honours, the enjoyment of which is not denied to her.

In Scotland crests have always had a very much less important position than in England. There has been little if any continuity {343} with regard to them, and instances of changes for which caprice would appear to be the only reason are met with in the cases of a large proportion of the chief families in that kingdom. To such a widespread extent has the permissive character been allowed to the crest, that many cases will be found in which each successive matriculation for the head of the house, or for a cadet, has produced a change in the crest, and instances are to be found where the different crests are the only existing differences in the achievements of a number of cadets of the same family. At the present time, little if any objection is ever made to an entire and radical change in the crest--if this is wished at the time of a rematriculation--and as far as I can gather such changes appear to have always been permitted. Perhaps it may be well here to point out that this is not equivalent to permission to change the crest at pleasure, because the patent of matriculation until it is superseded by another is the authority, and the compulsory authority, for the crest which is to be borne. In Germany the crest has an infinitely greater importance than is the case with ourselves, but it is there considered in a large degree a territorial appanage, and it is by no means unusual in a German achievement to see several crests surmounting a single coat of arms. In England the Royal coat of arms has really three crests, although the crests of Scotland and Ireland are seldom used, which, it may be noted, are all in a manner territorial; but the difference of idea with which crests are regarded in Germany may be gathered from the fact that the King of Saxony has five, the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin five, the Grand Duke of Saxe-Meiningen six, the Grand Duke of Saxe-Altenburg seven, the Duke of Anhalt seven, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha six, the Prince of Schwartzburg-Sondershausen six, the Prince of Schwartzburg-Rudolstadt six, the Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont five, the Prince of Lippe five, the Duke of Brunswick five, and instances can be quoted of sixteen and seventeen.

Probably Woodward is correct when he says that each crest formerly denoted a n.o.ble fief, for which the proprietor had a right to vote in the "circles"

of the Empire, and he instances the Margraves of Brandenburg-Ans.p.a.ch, who were ent.i.tled to no less than thirteen crests. In France the use of crests is not nearly so general as in England or Germany. In Spain and Portugal it is less frequent still, and in Italy the use of a crest is the exception.

The German practice of using horns on either side of the crest, which the ignorance of English heralds has transformed into the proboscides of elephants, is dealt with at some length on page 214. The horns, which are termed buffalo's or bull's horns until the middle of the thirteenth century, were short and thick-set. It is difficult to {344} say at what date these figures came to be considered as heraldic _crests_, for as mere helmet ornaments they probably can be traced back very far beyond any proof of the existence of armory. In the fourteenth century we find the horns curved inwards like a sickle, but later the horns are found more erect, the points turning outwards, slimmer in shape, and finally they exhibit a decidedly marked double curve. Then the ends of the horns are met with open, like a trumpet, the fact which gave rise to the erroneous idea that they represented elephants' trunks. The horns became ornamented with feathers, banners, branches of leaves, b.a.l.l.s, &c., and the orifices garnished with similar adornments.

In England, crests are theoretically subject to marks of cadency and difference. This is not the case, however, in any other country. In Germany, in cases where the crests reproduce the arms, any mark of cadency with which the arms are distinguished will of course be repeated; but in German heraldry, doubtless owing to the territorial nature of the crest, a change in the crest itself is often the only mark of distinction between different branches of the same family, and in Siebmacher's _Wappenbuch_ thirty-one different branches of the Zorn family have different crests, which are the sole marks of difference in the achievements.

But though British crests are presumed to be subject to the recognised marks of cadency, as a matter of fact it is very seldom indeed that they are ever so marked, with the exception that the mark used (usually a cross crosslet) to signify the lack of blood relationship when arms are a.s.sumed under a Royal License, is compulsory. Marks of distinction added to signify illegitimacy are also compulsory and perpetual. What these marks are will be dealt with in a subsequent chapter upon the subject. How very seldom a mark of difference is added to a crest may be gathered from the fact that with the exception of labels, chiefly upon the Royal crest, one crest only amongst the Plantagenet Garter plates is differenced, that one being the crest of John Neville, Lord Montague. Several crests, however, which are not Royal, are differenced by similar labels to those which appear upon the shields; but when we find that the difference marks have very much of a permissive character, even upon the shield, it is not likely that they are perpetuated upon the crest, where they are even less desirable. The arms of c.o.kayne, as given in the funeral certificate of Sir William c.o.kayne, Lord Mayor of London, show upon the shield three crescents, sable, or, and gules, charged one upon the other, the Lord Mayor being the second son of a second son of c.o.kayne of Sturston, descending from William, second son of Sir John c.o.kayne of Ashborne. But, in spite of the fact that three difference marks are charged upon the shield (one of the quarterings of which, by the way, {345} has an additional mark), the crest itself is only differenced by one crescent. These difference marks, as applied to arms, are in England (the rules in Scotland are utterly distinct) practically permissive, and are never enforced against the wish of the bearer except in one circ.u.mstance. If, owing to the grant of a crest or supporters, or a Royal License, or any similar opportunity, a formal exemplification of the arms is entered on the books of the College of Arms, the opportunity is generally taken to add such mark of cadency as may be necessary; and no certificate would be officially issued to any one claiming arms through that exemplification except subject to the mark of cadency therein depicted. In such cases as these the crest is usually differenced, because the necessity for an exemplification does not often occur, except owing to the establishment of an important branch of the family, which is likely to continue as a separate house in the future, and possibly to rival the importance of the chief of the name. Two examples will show my meaning. The crest of the Duke of Bedford is a goat statant argent, armed or. When Earl Russell, the third son of the sixth Duke of Bedford, was so created, the arms, crest, and supporters were charged with a mullet argent. When the first Lord Ampthill, who was the third son of the father of the ninth Duke of Bedford, was so created, the arms of Russell, with the crest and supporters, were also charged with mullets, these being of different tinctures from those granted to Earl Russell. The crest of the Duke of Westminster is a talbot statant or. The first Lord Stalbridge was the second son of the Marquess of Westminster. His arms, crest, and supporters were charged with a crescent. Lord Ebury was the third son of the first Marquess of Westminster. His arms, crest, and supporters were charged with a mullet. In cases of this kind the mark of difference upon the crest would be considered permanent; but for ordinary purposes, and in ordinary circ.u.mstances, the rule may be taken to be that it is not necessary to add the mark of cadency to a crest, even when it is added to the shield, but that, at the same time, it is not incorrect to do so.

Crests must nowadays always be depicted upon either a wreath, coronet, or chapeau; but these, and the rules concerning them, will be considered in a more definite and detailed manner in the separate chapters in which those objects are discussed.

Crests are nowadays very frequently used upon livery b.u.t.tons. Such a usage is discussed at some length in the chapter on badges.

When two or more crests are depicted together, and when, as is often the case in England, the wreaths are depicted in s.p.a.ce, and without the intervening helmets, the crests always all face to the dexter side, and the stereotyped character of English crests perhaps more than any other reason, has led of late to the depicting of English {346} helmets all placed to face in the same direction to the dexter side. But if, as will often be found, the two helmets are turned to face each other, the crests also must be turned.

Where there are two crests, the one on the dexter side is the first and the one on the sinister side is the second. When there are three, the centre one comes first, then the one on the dexter side, then the one on the sinister. When there are four crests, the first one is the dexter of the two inner ones; the second is the sinister inner one; the third is the dexter outer, and the fourth the sinister outer. When there are five (and I know of no greater number in this country), they run as follows: (1) centre, (2) dexter inner, (3) sinister inner, (4) dexter outer, (5) sinister outer.

A very usual practice in official emblazonments in cases of three crests is to paint the centre one of a larger size, and at a slightly lower level, than the others. In the case of four, Nos. 1 and 2 would be of the same size, Nos. 3 and 4 slightly smaller, and slightly raised.

It is a very usual circ.u.mstance to see two or more crests displayed in England, but this practice is of comparatively recent date. How recent may be gathered from the fact that in Scotland no single instance can be found before the year 1809 in which two crests are placed above the same shield.

Scottish heraldry, however, has always been purer than English, and the practice in England is much more ancient, though I question if in England any authentic official exemplification can be found before 1700. There are, however, many cases in the Visitation Books in which two crests are allowed to the same family, but this fact does not prove the point, because a Visitation record is merely an official record of inheritance and possession, and not necessarily evidence of a regulation permitting the simultaneous display of more than one. It is of course impossible to use two sets of supporters with a single shield, but there are many peers who are ent.i.tled to two sets; Lord Ancaster, I believe, is ent.i.tled to three sets. But an official record in such a case would probably emblazon both sets as evidence of right, by painting the shield twice over.

During the eighteenth century we find many instances of the grant of additional crests of augmentation, and many exemplifications under Royal License for the use of two and three crests. Since that day the correctness of duplicate crests has never been questioned, where the right of inheritance to them has been established. The right of inheritance to two or more crests at the present time is only officially allowed in the following cases.

If a family at the time of the Visitations had two crests recorded to them, these would be now allowed. If descent can be proved from a family to whom a certain crest was allowed, and also from ancestors {347} at an earlier date who are recorded as ent.i.tled to bear a different crest, the two would be allowed unless it was evident that the later crest had been granted, a.s.signed, or exemplified _in lieu_ of the earlier one. Two crests are allowed in the few cases which exist where a family has obtained a grant of arms in ignorance of the fact that they were then ent.i.tled to bear arms and crest of an earlier date to which the right has been subsequently proved, but on this point it should be remarked that if a right to arms is known to exist a second grant in England is point-blank refused unless the pet.i.tion asks for it to be borne instead of, and in lieu of, the earlier one: it is then granted in those terms.

To those who think that the Heralds' College is a mere fee-grabbing inst.i.tution, the following experience of an intimate friend of mine may be of interest. In placing his pedigree upon record it became evident that his descent was not legitimate, and he therefore pet.i.tioned for and obtained a Royal License to bear the name and arms of the family from which he had sprung. But the illegitimacy was not modern, and no one would have questioned his right to the name which all the other members of the family bear, if he had not himself raised the point in order to obtain the ancient arms in the necessarily differenced form. The arms had always been borne with some four or five quarterings and with two crests, and he was rather annoyed that he had to go back to a simple coat of arms and single crest.

He obtained a grant for his wife, who was an heiress, and then, with the idea of obtaining an additional quartering and a second crest, he conceived the brilliant idea--for money was of no object to him--of putting his brother forward as a pet.i.tioner for arms to be granted to him and his descendants and to the other descendants of his father, a grant which would of course have brought in my friend. He moved heaven and earth to bring this about, but he was met with the direct statement that two grants of arms could not be made to the same man to be borne simultaneously, and that if he persisted in the grant of arms to his brother, his own name, as being then ent.i.tled to bear arms, would be specifically exempted from the later grant, and the result was that this second grant was never made.

In Scotland, where re-matriculation is constantly going on, two separate matriculations _to the same line_ would not confer the right to two crests, inasmuch as the last matriculation supersedes everything which has preceded it. But if a cadet matriculates a different crest, _and subsequently_ succeeds to the representation under an earlier matriculation, he legally succeeds to both crests, and incidentally to both coats of arms. As a matter of ordinary practice, the cadet matriculation is discarded. A curious case, however, occurs when after {348} matriculation by a cadet there is a _later_ matriculation behind it, by some one nearer the head of the house to which the first-mentioned cadet succeeds; in which event selection must be brought into play, when succession to both occurs. But the selection lies only between the two patents, and not from varied const.i.tuent parts.

Where as an augmentation an additional crest is granted, as has been the case in many instances, of course a right to the double crest is thereby conferred, and a crest of augmentation is not granted in lieu, but in addition.

A large number of these additional crests have been granted under specific warrants from the Crown, and in the case of Lord Gough, two additional crests were granted as separate augmentations and under separate patents.

Lord Kitchener recently received a grant of an additional crest of augmentation. There are also a number of grants on record, not officially ranking as augmentations, in which a second crest has been granted as a memorial of descent or office, &c.

The other cases in which double and treble crests occur are the results of exemplifications following upon Royal Licenses to a.s.sume name and arms. As a rule, when an additional surname is adopted by Royal License, the rule is that the arms adopted are to be borne in addition to those previously in existence; and where one name is adopted instead of another the warrant very frequently permits this, and at the same time permits or requires the new arms to be borne quarterly with those previously possessed, and gives the right to two crests. But in cases where names and arms are a.s.sumed by Royal License the arms and crest or crests are in accordance with the patent of exemplification, which, no matter what its terms (for some do not expressly exclude any prior rights), is always presumed to supersede everything which has gone before, and to be the authority by which the subsequent bearing of arms is regularised and controlled. Roughly speaking, under a Royal License one generally gets the right to one crest for every surname, and if the original surname be discarded, in addition a crest for every previous surname. Thus Mainwaring-Ellerker-Onslow has three crests, Wyndham-Campbell-Pleydell-Bouverie has four, and the last Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, who held the record, had one for each of his surnames, namely, Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville. In addition to the foregoing, there are one or two exceptions which it is difficult to explain. The Marquess of Bute for some reason or other obtained a grant, in the year 1822, of the crest of Herbert. The original Lord Liverpool obtained a grant of an additional crest, possibly an augmentation, and his representative, Lord Hawkesbury, afterwards created Earl of Liverpool, for some reason or other which I am quite at a loss to understand, obtained a grant of a crest {349} very similar to that of Lord Liverpool to commemorate the representation which had devolved upon him. He subsequently obtained a grant of a third crest, this last being of augmentation. Sir Charles Young, Garter King of Arms, obtained the grant of a second crest, and a former Marquess of Camden did the same thing; Lord Swansea is another recent case, and though the right of any person to obtain the grant of a second crest is not officially admitted, and is in fact strenuously denied, I cannot for the life of me see how in the face of the foregoing precedents any such privilege can be denied. Sir William Woods also obtained the grant of a second crest when he was Garter, oblivious of the fact that he had not really established a right to arms. Those he used were certainly granted in Lyon Office to a relative, but no matriculation of them in his own name was ever registered. {350}

CHAPTER XXII

CROWNS AND CORONETS