A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 52

"On the seal of HUMPHREY DE BOHUN in 1322 the _guige_ is held by a swan, the badge of the Earls of HEREFORD; and in 1356 the shield of the first Earl of DOUGLAS is supported by a lion whose head is covered by the crested helm, a fashion of which there are many examples. A helmed lion holds the shield of MAGNUS I., Duke of BRUNSWICK, in 1326.

"On the seal of JEAN, Duc de BERRI, in 1393 the supporter is a helmed swan (compare the armorial slab of HENRY of LANCASTER, in BOUTELL, Plate LXXIX.). Jean IV., Comte d'ALENcON (1408), has a helmed lion sejant as supporter. In 1359 a signet of LOUIS VAN MALE, Count of FLANDERS, bears a lion sejant, helmed and crested, and mantled with the arms of FLANDERS between two small escutcheons of NEVERS, or the county of Burgundy ["Azure, billetty, a lion rampant or"], and RETHEL ["Gules, two heads of rakes fesswise in pale or"].

"A single lion sejant, helmed and crested, bearing on its breast the quartered arms of BURGUNDY between two or three other escutcheons, was used by the Dukes up to the death of CHARLES THE BOLD in 1475. In LITTA'S splendid work, _Famiglie celebri Italiane_, the BUONAROTTI arms are supported by a brown dog sejant, helmed, and crested with a pair of dragon's wings issuing from a crest-coronet. On the seal of THOMAS HOLLAND, Earl of KENT, in 1380 the shield is buckled round the neck of the white hind lodged, the badge of his half-brother, RICHARD II. Single supporters were very much in favour in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the examples are numerous. {411} CHARLES, Dauphin de VIENNOIS (_c._ 1355), has his shield held by a single dolphin. In 1294 the seal of the Dauphin JEAN, son of HUMBERT I., bears the arms of DAUPHINe pendent from the neck of a griffon. The shields of arms of BERTRAND DE BRICQUEBEC, in 1325; PIERRE DE TOURNEBU, in 1339; of CHARLES, Count of ALENcON, in 1356; and of OLIVER DE CLISSON in 1397, are supported by a warrior who stands behind the shield. In England the seal of HENRY PERCY, first Earl, in 1346, and another in 1345, have similar representations.

"On several of our more ancient seals only one supporter is represented, and probably the earliest example of this arrangement occurs on the curious seal of William, first Earl of Douglas (_c._ 1356), where the shield is supported from behind by a lion 'sejant,' _with his head in the helmet_, which is surmounted by the crest.

"On the seal of Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas (_c._ 1418), the shield is held, along with a club, in the right hand of a savage _erect_, who bears a helmet in his left; while on that of William, eighth Earl (1446), a _kneeling_ savage holds a club in his right hand, and supports a couche shield on his left arm."

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 666.--Arms of Sigmund Hagelshaimer.]

An example reproduced from Jost Amman's _Wappen und Stammbuch_, published at Frankfurt, 1589, will be found in Fig. 666. In this the figure partakes more of the character of a shield guardian than a shield supporter. The arms are those of "Sigmund Hagelshaimer," otherwise "Helt," living at Nurnberg. The arms are "Sable, on a bend argent, an arrow gules." The crest is the head and neck of a hound sable, continued into a mantling sable, lined argent. The crest is charged with a pale argent, and thereupon an arrow as in the arms, the arrow-head piercing the ear of the hound.

Seated figures as supporters are rare, but one occurs in Fig. 667, which shows the arms of the Vohlin family. They bear: "Argent, on a fesse sable, three 'P's' argent." The wings which form the crest are charged with the same device. This curious charge of the three letters is explained in the following saying:--

"Piper Peperit Pecuniam, Pecunia Peperit Pompam, Pompa Peperit Pauperiem, Pauperies Peperit Pietatem."

{412}

There are, however, certain exceptions to the British rule that there can be no single supporters, if the objects upon which shields of arms are displayed are accepted as supporters. It was always customary to display the arms of the Lord High Admiral on the sail of the ship. In the person of King William IV., before he succeeded to the throne, the office of Lord High Admiral was vested for a short time, but it had really fallen into desuetude at an earlier date and has not been revived again, so that to all intents and purposes it is now extinct, and this recognised method of depicting arms is consequently also extinct. But there is one other case which forms a unique instance which can be cla.s.sified with no others. The arms of Campbell of Craignish are always represented in a curious manner, the gyronny coat of Campbell appearing on a shield displayed in front of a lymphad (Plate II.). What the origin of this practice is it would be difficult to say; probably it merely originated in the imaginative ideas of an artist when making a seal for that family, artistic reasons suggesting the display of the gyronny arms of Campbell in front of the lymphad of Lorne. The family, however, seem to have universally adopted this method of using their arms, and in the year 1875, when Campbell of Inverneil matriculated in Lyon Register, the arms were matriculated in that form. I know of no other instance of any such coat of arms, and this branch of the Ducal House of Campbell possesses armorial bearings which, from the official standpoint, are absolutely unique from one end of Europe to the other.

In Germany the use of arms depicted in front of the eagle displayed, either single-headed or double-headed, is very far from being unusual. Whatever may have been its meaning originally in that country, there is no doubt that now and for some centuries past it has been accepted as meaning, or as indicative of, princely rank or other honours of the Holy Roman Empire. But I do not think it can always have had that meaning. About the same date the Earl of Menteith placed his shield on the breast of an eagle, as did Alexander, Earl of Ross, in 1338; and in 1394 we find the same ornamentation in the seal of Euphemia, Countess of Ross. The shield of Ross is borne in her case on the breast of an eagle, while the arms of Leslie and Comyn appear on its displayed wings. On several other Scottish seals of the same era, the shield is placed on the breast of a displayed eagle, as on those of Alexander Abernethy and Alexander c.u.min of Buchan (1292), and Sir David Lindsay, Lord of Crawford. English heraldry supplies several similar examples, of which we may mention the armorial insignia of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III., and of the ancient family of Latham, in the fourteenth century. A curious instance of a shield placed on the breast of a _hawk_ is noticed by Hone in his "Table {413} Book," viz.

the arms of the Lord of the Manor of Stoke-Lyne, in the county of Oxford.

It appears therefrom that when Charles I. held his Parliament at Oxford, the offer of knighthood was gratefully declined by the then Lord of Stoke-Lyne, who merely requested, and obtained, the Royal permission to place the arms of his family upon the breast of a hawk, which has ever since been employed in the capacity of single supporter. What authority exists for this statement it is impossible to ascertain, and one must doubt its accuracy, because in England at any rate no arms, allocated to any particular _territorial estate_, have ever received official recognition.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 667.--Arms of Vohlin of Augsberg.]

In later years, as indicative of rank in the Holy Roman Empire, the eagle has been rightly borne by the first Duke of Marlborough and by Henrietta his daughter, d.u.c.h.ess of Marlborough, but the use of the eagle by the later Dukes of Marlborough would appear to be entirely without authority, inasmuch as the princedom, created in the person of the first duke, became extinct on his death. His daughters, though ent.i.tled of right to the courtesy rank of princess and its accompanying privilege of the right to use the eagle displayed behind their arms, could not transmit it to their descendants upon whom the t.i.tle of Duke of Marlborough was specially entailed by English Act of Parliament.

The Earl of Denbigh and several members of the Fielding family have often made use of it with their arms, in token of their supposed descent from the Counts of Hapsburg, which, if correct, would apparently confer the right upon them. This descent, however, has been much questioned, and in late years the claim thereto would seem to have been practically dropped. The late Earl Cowper, the last remaining Prince of the Holy Roman Empire in the British Peerage, was ent.i.tled to use the double eagle behind his shield, being the descendant and representative of George Na.s.sau Clavering Cowper, third Earl Cowper, created a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire by the Emperor Joseph II., the patent being dated at Vienna, 31st January 1778, and this being followed by a Royal Licence from King George III. to accept and bear the t.i.tle in this country.

There are some others who have the right by reason of honours of lesser rank of the Holy Roman Empire, and amongst these may be mentioned Lord Methuen, who bears the eagle by Royal Warrant dated 4th April 1775. Sir Thomas Arundel, who served in the Imperial army of Hungary, having in an engagement with the Turks near Strignum taken their standard with his own hands, was by Rodolph II. created Count of the Empire to hold for him and the heirs of his body for ever, dated at Prague 14th December 1595. This patent, of course, means that every one of his descendants in the male {414} line has the rank of a Count of the Empire, and that every daughter of any such male descendant is a Countess, but this does not confer the rank of count or countess upon descendants of the daughters. It was this particular patent of creation that called forth the remark from Queen Elizabeth that she would not have her sheep branded by any foreign shepherd, and we believe that this patent was the origin of the rule translated in later times (_temp._ George IV.) into a definite Royal Warrant, requiring that no English subject shall, without the express Royal Licence of the Sovereign conveyed in writing, accept or wear any foreign t.i.tle or decoration. No Royal Licence was subsequently obtained by the Arundel family, who therefore, according to British law, are denied the use of the privileged Imperial eagle. Outside those cases in which the double eagle is used in this country to denote rank of the Holy Roman Empire, the usage of the eagle displayed behind the arms or any a.n.a.logous figure is in British heraldry most limited.

One solitary authoritative instance of the use of the displayed eagle is found in the coat of arms of the city of Perth. These arms are recorded in Lyon Register, having been matriculated for that Royal Burgh about the year 1672. The official blazon of the arms is as follows: "Gules ane holy lambe pa.s.sant regardant staff and cross argent, with the banner of St. Andrew proper, all within a double tressure counter-flowered of the second, the escutcheon being surmounted on the breast of ane eagle with two necks displayed or. The motto in ane Escroll, 'Pro Rege Lege et Grege.'"

Another instance of usage, though purely devoid of authority, occurs in the case of a coat of arms set up on one of the panels in the Hall of Lincoln's Inn. In this case the achievement is displayed on the breast of a single-headed eagle. What reason led to its usage in this manner I am quite unaware, and I have not the slightest reason for supposing it to be authentic. The family of Stuart-Menteith also place their arms upon a single-headed eagle displayed gules, as was formerly to be seen in Debrett's Peerage, but though arms are matriculated to them in Lyon Register, this particular adornment forms no part thereof, and it has now disappeared from the printed Peerage books. The family of Britton have, however, recently recorded as a badge a double-headed eagle displayed ermine, holding in its claws an escutcheon of their arms (Plate VIII.).

Occasionally batons or wands or other insignia of office are to be found in conjunction with armorial bearings, but these will be more fully dealt with under the heading of Insignia of Office. Before dealing with the usual supporters, one perhaps may briefly allude to "inanimate" supporters. {415}

Probably the most curious instance of all will be found in the achievement of the Earls of Errol as it appears in the MS. of Sir David Lindsay. In this two ox-yokes take the place of the supporters. The curious tradition which has been attached to the Hay arms is quoted as follows by Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms, in his "Heraldry in relation to Scottish History and Art," who writes: "Take the case of the well-known coat of the Hays, and hear the description of its origin as given by Nisbet: 'In the reign of Kenneth III., about the year 980, when the Danes invaded Scotland, and prevailing in the battle of Luncarty, a country Scotsman with his two sons, of great strength and courage, having rural weapons, as the yokes of their plough, and such plough furniture, stopped the Scots in their flight in a certain defile, and upbraiding them with cowardice, obliged them to rally, who with them renewed the battle, and gave a total overthrow to the victorious Danes; and it is said by some, after the victory was obtained, the old man lying on the ground, wounded and fatigued, cried, "Hay, Hay,"

which word became a surname to his posterity. He and his sons being n.o.bilitate, the King gave him the aforesaid arms (argent, three escutcheons gules) to intimate that the father and the two sons had been luckily the three shields of Scotland, and gave them as much land in the Ca.r.s.e of Gowrie as a falcon did fly over without lighting, which having flown a great way, she lighted on a stone there called the Falcon Stone to this day. The circ.u.mstances of which story is not only perpetuated by the three escutcheons, but by the exterior ornaments of the achievement of the family of Errol; having for crest, on a wreath, a falcon proper; for supporters two men in country habits, holding the oxen-yokes of a plough over their shoulders; and for motto, "Serva jugum."'

"Unfortunately for the truth of this picturesque tale there are several reasons which render it utterly incredible, not the least being that at the period of the supposed battle armorial bearings were quite unknown, and could not have formed the subject of a royal gift. Hill Burton, indeed, strongly doubts the occurrence of the battle itself, and says that Hector Boece, who relates the occurrence, must be under strong suspicion of having entirely invented it. As for the origin of the name itself, it is, as Mr.

Cosmo Innes points out in his work on 'Scottish Surnames,' derived from a place in Normandy, and neither it nor any other surname occurred in Scotland till long after the battle of Luncarty. I have mentioned this story in some detail, as it is a very typical specimen of its cla.s.s; but there are others like unto it, often traceable to the same incorrigible old liar, Hector Boece."

It is not unlikely that the ox-yoke was a badge of the Hays, Earls of Errol, and a reference to the variations of the original arms, crest, {416} and supporters of Hay will show how the changes have been rung on the shields, falcon, ox-yokes, and countrymen of the legend.

Another instance is to be found in the arms of the Mowbray family as they were at one time depicted with an ostrich feather on either side of the shield (Fig. 675, p. 465), and at first one might be inclined to cla.s.s these amongst the inanimate supporters. The Garter plate, however, of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, probably supplies the key to the whole matter, for this shows not only the ostrich feathers but also supporters of the ordinary character in their usual position. From the last-mentioned instance, it is evident the ostrich feathers can be only representations of the badge, their character doubtless being peculiarly adaptable to the curious position they occupy. They are of course the same in the case of the Mowbray arms, and doubtless the ox-yoke of the Earl of Errol is similarly no more than a badge.

A most curious instance of supporters is to be found in the case of the arms of Viscount Montgomery. This occurs in a record of them in Ulster's Office, where the arms appear without the usual kind of supporters, but represented with an arm in armour, on either side issuing from clouds in base, the hands supporting the shield.

When supporters are inanimate objects, the escutcheon is said to be cottised--a term derived from the French word _cote_ (a side)--in contradistinction to supported. An old Scottish term for supporters was "bearers."

Amongst other cases where the shield is cottised by inanimate objects may be mentioned the following. The Breton family of "b.a.s.t.a.r.d" depict their shield cottised by two swords, with the points in base. The Marquises Alberti similarly use two lighted flambeaux, and the Dalzells (of Binns) the extraordinary device of a pair of tent-poles. Whether this last has been officially sanctioned I am unaware. The "Pillars of Hercules" used by Charles V. are, perhaps, the best known of this group of supporters. In many cases (notably foreign) the supporters appear to have gradually receded to the back of the shield, as in the case of the Comte d'Erps, Chancellor of Brabant, where two maces (or) are represented saltirewise _behind_ the shield. Generally, however, this variation is found in conjunction with purely official or corporate achievements.

A curious example of inanimate supporters occurs on the English seal of William, Lord Botreaux (1426), where, on each side of a couche shield exhibiting a griffin "segreant" and surmounted by a helmet and crest, a b.u.t.tress is quaintly introduced, in evident allusion to the owner's name. A somewhat similar arrangement appears on the Scottish seal of William Ruthven (1396), where a tree growing from a mount is placed on each side of the escutcheon. Another instance is to be {417} found in the seal of John de Segrave, where a garb is placed on either side of the shield. Perhaps mention should here be made of the arms (granted in 1826) of the National Bank of Scotland, the shield of which is "surrounded with two thistles proper disposed in orle."

Heraldic supporters as such, or badges occupying the position and answering the purpose of supporters, and not merely as artistic accessories, in England date from the early part of the fourteenth century. Very restricted in use at first, they later rapidly became popular, and there were few peers who did not display them upon their seals. For some reason, however, very few indeed appear on the early Garter plates. It is a striking fact that by far the larger number of the ancient standards display as the chief device not the arms but one of the supporters, and I am inclined to think that in this fact we have further confirmation of my belief that the origin of supporters is found in the badge.

Even after the use of two supporters had become general, a third figure is often found placed behind the shield, and forms a connecting link with the old practice of filling the void s.p.a.ces on seals, to which we have already referred. On the seal of WILLIAM STERLING, in 1292, two lions rampant support the shield in front of a tree. The shield on the seal of OLIVER ROUILLON, in 1376, is supported by an angel, and by two demi-lions couchant-guardant in base. That of PIERRE AVOIR, in 1378, is held by a demi-eagle above the shield, and by two mermaids. On many ancient seals the supporters are disposed so that they hold the crested helm above a couche shield.

The counter-seals of RUDOLF IV., Archduke of AUSTRIA, in 1359 and 1362, afford instances in which a second set of supporters is used to hold up the crested helm. The shield of AUSTRIA is supported by two lions, on whose volets are the arms of HAPSBURG and PFIRT; the crested helm (coroneted, and having a panache of ostrich feathers) is also held by two lions, whose volets are charged with the arms of STIRIA, and of CARINTHIA (HUEBER, _Austria Ill.u.s.trata,_ tab. xviii.).

In 1372 the seal of EDMUND MORTIMER represents his shield hanging from a rose-tree, and supported by two lions couchant (of MARCH), whose heads are covered by coroneted helmets with a panache (azure) as crest.

BOUTELL directs attention to the fact that the shield of EDMUND DE ARUNDEL (1301-1326) is placed between similar helms and panaches, without the supporting beasts ("Heraldry: Historical and Popular," pp. 271-418).

Crested supporters have sometimes been misunderstood, and quoted as instances of double supporters--for instance, by LOWER, "Curiosities of Heraldry," who gives (p. 144) a cut from the {418} achievement of the French D'ALBRETS as "the most singular supporters, perhaps, in the whole circle of heraldry." These supporters are two lions couchant (or), each helmed, and crested with an eagle au vol leve. These eagles certainly a.s.sist in holding the shield, but the lions are its true supporters; nor is this arrangement by any means unique. The swans which were used as supporters by JEAN, DUC DE BERRI, in 1386, are each mounted upon a bear.

Two wild men, each _a cheval_ on a lion, support the escutcheons of GERARD D'HARCHIES (1476) and of NICOLE DE GIRESME (1464). Two lions sejant, helmed and crested (the crest is a human head with the ears of an a.s.s) were the supporters of ARNAUD D'ALBREY in 1368.

Scotland, which is the home of curiosities of heraldry, gives us at least two instances of the use of supporters which must be absolutely unique--that is, the surcharging of an escutcheon with an inescutcheon, to the latter of which supporters are attached. The first instance occurs in the cases of Baronets of Nova Scotia, a clause appearing in all the earlier patents which ordained "that the Baronets, and their heirs-male, should, as an _additament of honour_ to their armorial ensigns, bear, either on a canton or inescutcheon, in their option, the ensign of Nova Scotia, being _argent_, a cross of St. Andrew _azure_ (the badge of Scotland counterchanged), charged with an inescutcheon of the Royal Arms of Scotland, supported on the dexter by the Royal unicorn, and on the sinister by a savage, or wild man, proper; and for crest, a branch of laurel and a thistle issuing from two hands conjoined, the one being armed, the other naked; with the motto, "Munit haec et altera vincit." The incongruity of these exterior ornaments within a shield of arms is noticed by Nisbet, who informs us, however, that they are very soon removed. In the year 1629, after Nova Scotia was sold to the French, the Baronets of Scotland, and their heirs-male, were authorised by Charles I. "to wear and carry about their necks, in all time coming, an orange-tawny silk ribbon, whereon shall be pendent, in a scutcheon _argent_, a saltire _azure_, thereon an inescutcheon, of the arms of Scotland, with an Imperial crown above the scutcheon and encircled with this motto: 'Fax mentis honestae gloria.'"

According to the same authority, this badge was never much used "about their necks," but was carried, by way of canton or inescutcheon, on their armorial bearings, without the motto, and, of course, since then the superimposed supporters have been dropped.

The same peculiarity of supporters being surcharged upon a shield will be found, however, in the matriculation (1795) to c.u.mming-Gordon of Altyre.

These arms are depicted on Plate III. In this the entire achievement (arms, crest, motto, and supporters) of Gordon of Gordon {419} is placed upon an inescutcheon superimposed over the arms of c.u.mming.

In Scotland the arms, and the arms only, const.i.tute the mark of a given family, and whilst due difference is made in the respective shields, no attempt is made as regards crest or supporters to impose any distinction between the figures granted to different families even where no blood relationship exists. The result is that whilst the same crests and supporters are duplicated over and over again, they at any rate remain in Scotland simple, graceful, and truly heraldic, even when judged by the most rigid mediaeval standard. They are, of course, necessarily of no value whatever for identification. In England the simplicity is relinquished for the sake of distinction, and it is held that equivalent differentiation must be made, both in regard to the crests and the supporters, as is made between the shields of different families. The result as to modern crests is truly appalling, and with supporters it is almost equally so, for by their very nature it is impossible to design adequate differences for crests and supporters, as can readily be done in the charges upon a shield, without creating monstrosities. With regret one has to admit that the dangling shields, the diapered chintz-like bodies, and the fasces and other footstools so frequently provided for modern supporters in England would seem to be pedantic, unnecessary, and inartistic strivings after a useless ideal.

In England the right to bear supporters is confined to those to whom they have been granted or recorded, but such grant or record is very rigidly confined to peers, to Knights of the Garter, Thistle, and St. Patrick, and to Knights Grand Cross, or Knights Grand Commanders (as the case may be) of other Orders. Before the Order of the Bath was divided into cla.s.ses, Knights of the Bath had supporters. As by an unwritten but nowadays invariably accepted law, the Orders of the Garter, Thistle, and St. Patrick are confined to members of the peerage, those ent.i.tled to claim (upon their pet.i.tioning) a grant of supporters in England are in practice limited to peers and Knights Grand Cross or Knights Grand Commanders. In the cases of peers, the grant is always attached to a particular peerage, the "remainder" in the limitations of the grant being to "those of his descendants upon whom the peerage may devolve," or some other words to this effect. In the cases of life peers and Knights Grand Cross the grant has no hereditary limitation, and the right to the supporters is personal to the grantee. There is nothing to distinguish the supporters of a peer from those of a Knight Grand Cross. Baronets of England, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom as such are not ent.i.tled to claim grants of supporters, but there are some number of cases in which, by special favour of the sovereign, specific Royal Warrants have been {420} issued-either as marks of favour or as augmentations of honour--conveying the pleasure of the sovereign to the kings of arms, and directing the latter to grant supporters--to descend with the baronetcy. Of the cases of this nature the following may be quoted: Guise (Royal Warrant, dated July 12, 1863), Prevost (Royal Warrant, October 1816), Guinness, now Lord Ardilaun (Royal Warrant, dated April 15, 1867), Halford (Royal Warrant, May 19, 1827), Otway (Royal Warrant, June 10, 1845), and Laking. These, of course, are exceptional marks of favour from the sovereign, and this favour in at least two instances has been extended to unt.i.tled families. In 1815 Mr. George Watson-Taylor, an especial intimate of the then Prince Regent, by Royal Warrant dated September 28, 1815, was granted the following supporters: "On either side a leopard proper, armed and langued gules, collared and chained or." A more recent instance, and, with the exception of an Irish case presently to be referred to, the only other one within the knowledge of the writer, is the case of the Speke[25] arms. It is recited in the Royal Warrant, dated July 26, 1867, that Captain John Hanning Speke "was by a deplorable accident suddenly deprived of his life before he had received any mark of our Royal favour" in connection with the discovery of the sources of the Nile. The Warrant goes on to recite the grant to his father, William Speke, of Jordans, co. Somerset, of the following augmentations to his original arms (argent, two bars azure) namely: on a chief a representation of flowing water superinscribed with the word "Nile," and for a crest of honourable augmentation a "crocodile," also the supporters following--that is to say, on the dexter side a crocodile, and on the sinister side a hippopotamus. Some number of English baronets have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining grants of supporters in Lyon Office; for example Sir Christopher Baynes, by grant dated June 10, 1805, obtained two savages, wreathed about the temples and loins, each holding a club over the exterior shoulder. It is very doubtful to what extent such grants in Scotland to domiciled Englishmen can be upheld. Many other baronets have at one time or another a.s.sumed supporters without any official warrant or authority in consequence of certain action taken by an earlier committee of the baronetage, but cases of this kind are slowly dropping out of the Peerage books, and this, {421} combined with the less ostentatious taste of the present day in the depicting of armorial bearings upon carriages and elsewhere, is slowly but steadily reducing the use of supporters to those who possess official authority for their display.

Another fruitful origin of the use of unauthorised supporters at the present day lies in the fact that grants of supporters personal to the grantee for his life only have been made to Knights Grand Cross or to life peers in cases where a hereditary t.i.tle has been subsequently conferred.

The limitations of the grant of supporters having never been extended, the grant has naturally expired with the death of the life honour to which the supporters were attached.

In addition to these cases there is a very limited number of families which have always claimed supporters by prescriptive right, amongst whom may be mentioned Tichborne of Tichborne (two lions guardant gules), De Hoghton of Hoghton (two bulls argent), Scroope of Danby (two choughs), and Stapylton.

Concerning such cases it can only be said that in England no official sanction has ever been given to such use, and no case exists of any official recognition of the right of an unt.i.tled family to bear supporters to their arms save those few exceptional cases governed by specific Royal Warrants. In many cases, notably Scroope, Luttrel, Hilton, and Stapylton, the supporters have probably originated in their legitimate adoption at an early period in connection with peerage or other t.i.tular distinction, and have continued inadvertently in use when the t.i.tular distinctions to which they belonged have ceased to exist or have devolved upon other families.

Possibly their use in some cases has been the result of a _claim_ to _de jure_ honours. The cases where supporters are claimed "by prescriptive right" are few indeed in England, and need not be further considered.

Whilst the official laws in Ireland are, and have apparently always been, the same as in England, there is no doubt that the heads of the different septs a.s.sert a claim to the right to use supporters. On this point Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King of Arms, wrote: "No registry of supporters to an Irish chieftain appears in Ulster's Office, in right of his chieftaincy only, and without the honour of peerage, nor does any authority to bear them exist." But nevertheless "The O'Donovan" uses, dexter, a lion guardant, and sinister, a griffin; "The O'Gorman" uses, dexter, a lion, and sinister, a horse; "The O'Reilly" uses two lions or. "The O'Connor Don,"

however, is in the unique position of bearing supporters by unquestionable right, inasmuch as the late Queen Victoria, on the occasion of her last visit to Dublin, issued her Royal Warrant conferring the right upon him.

The supporters granted to him were "two lions rampant gules, each gorged with an antique crown, and charged on the shoulder with an Irish harp or."

{422}

The right to bear supporters in Scotland is on a widely different basis from that in any other country. As in England and Ireland, peers and Knights Grand Cross are permitted to obtain grants of these distinctions.