A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 60

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 d.u.c.h.ess 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_ (d.u.c.h.ess 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 a.s.signed 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 c.u.mberland._--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 a.s.signed 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 c.u.mberland. 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 Suss.e.x._--The label argent charged with two hearts in pale gules in the centre point between two crosses gules.

_The Princess Royal_ (Queen of Wurtemberg).--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_ (d.u.c.h.ess 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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.signed 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 a.s.signs, 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 a.s.sign 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 princ.i.p.al 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 s.p.a.ces 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 a.s.signed 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 fitchee 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 a.n.a.lysing 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 a.s.sistance 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 a.s.signed 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 b.a.s.t.a.r.dy is a very modern error, arising from a confusion with the bordure compony.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 doc.u.ments 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 G.o.d 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 t.i.tle 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 Ba.s.set, 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 735.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1389.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 736.--Seal of Sir John de Swinton, 1475.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 737.--Seal of Robert Swinton, of that Ilk, 1598.]