A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 62

It will be noticed that I have said he will be required to prove his paternity. This is rigorously insisted upon, inasmuch as it is not fair to penalise the reputation of a dead man by inflicting upon him a record of b.a.s.t.a.r.d descendants whilst his own life might have been stainless. An illegitimate birth is generally recorded under the name of the mother only, and even when it is given, the truth of any statement as to paternity is always open to grave suspicion. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent a person a.s.serting that he is the son of a duke, whereas his real father may have been in a very plebeian walk in life; and to put the arms of the duke's family at the mercy of any fatherless person who chose to fancy a differenced version of them would be manifestly unjust, so that without proof in a legal action of the actual paternity, or some recognition under a will or settlement, it is impossible to adopt the alternative in question. But if such recognition or proof is forthcoming, the procedure is to pet.i.tion the Sovereign for a Royal Licence to use (or continue to use) the name desired and to bear the arms of the family. Such a pet.i.tion is always granted, on {518} proper proof of the facts, if made in due form through the proper channels. The Royal Licence to that effect is then issued. But the doc.u.ment contains two conditions, the first being that the arms shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms "with due and proper marks of distinction," and that the Royal Licence shall be recorded in the College of Arms, otherwise "to be void and of none effect." The invariable insertion of this clause puts into the hands of the College one of the strongest weapons the officers of arms possess.

Under the present practice the due and proper marks of distinction are, for the arms, a bordure wavy round the shield of the most suitable colour, according to what the arms may be, but if possible of some colour or metal different from any of the tinctures in the arms. The crest is usually differenced by a bendlet sinister wavy, but a pallet wavy is sometimes used, and sometimes a saltire wavy, couped or otherwise. The choice between these marks generally depends upon the nature of the crest. But even with this choice, the anomaly is frequently found of blank s.p.a.ce being carefully debruised. Seeing that the mark of the debruising is not a tangible object or thing, but a mark painted upon another object, such a result seems singularly ridiculous, and ought to be avoided. Whilst the ancient practice certainly appears to have been to make some slight change in the crest, it does not seem to have been debruised in the present manner. There are some number of more recent cases where, whilst the existing arms have been charged with the necessary marks of distinction, entirely new, or very much altered crests have been granted without any recognisable "marks of distinction." There can be no doubt that the bendlet wavy sinister upon the crest is a palpable penalising of the bearer, and I think the whole subject of the marks of b.a.s.t.a.r.dy in the three kingdoms might with advantage be brought under official consideration, with a view to new regulations being adopted. A bendlet wavy sinister is such an absolute defacement of a crest that few can care to make use of a crest so marked. It carries an effect far beyond what was originally the intention of marks of distinction.

A few recent b.a.s.t.a.r.dised exemplifications which have issued from Ulster's Office have had the crest charged with a baton couped sinister. The baton couped sinister had always. .h.i.therto been confined to the arms of Royal b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, but I am not aware of any Royal crest so b.a.s.t.a.r.dised. Of course no circ.u.mstances can be conceived in which it is necessary to debruise supporters, as under no circ.u.mstances can these be the subject of a Royal Licence of this character, except in a possible case where they might have been granted as a simple augmentation to a man and his descendants, without further limitation. I know of no b.a.s.t.a.r.dised version consequent upon such a grant. {519} Supporters signify some definite honour which cannot ordinarily survive illegitimacy.

The bordure wavy is placed round the p.r.o.nominal arms only, and no right to any quarterings the family may have enjoyed previously is conferred, except such right to a quarterly coat as might ensue through the a.s.sumption of a double name. Quartering is held to signify representation which cannot be given by a Royal Licence, but a quartering of augmentation or a duplicate coat for the p.r.o.nominal name which had been so regularly used with the alternative coat as to const.i.tute the two something in the nature of a compound coat, would be exemplified "all within a bordure wavy." Each illegitimate coat stands on its own basis, and there is a well-known instance in which a marriage was subsequently found to be illegal, or to have never taken place, after which, I believe, some number of brothers and sisters obtained Royal Licences and exemplifications. The descendants of one of the brothers will be found in the current Peerage Books, and those who know their peerage history well will recognise the case I allude to.

All the brothers and sisters had the same arms exemplified, each with a bordure wavy _of a different colour_. If there were descendants of any of the sisters, those descendants would have been ent.i.tled to quarter the arms, because the illegitimacy made each sister an heiress for heraldic purposes. This is a curious anomaly, for had they been legitimate the descendants would have enjoyed no such right.

In Scotland the mark of illegitimacy for the arms is the bordure compony, which is usually but not always indicative of the same. The bordure counter-compony has been occasionally stated to have the same character.

This is hardly correct, though it may be so in a few isolated cases, but the bordure chequy has nothing whatever of an illegitimate character. It will be noticed that whilst the bordure compony and the bordure counter-company have their chequers or "panes," to use the heraldic term, following the outline of the shield, by lines parallel to those which mark its contour, the bordure chequy is drawn by lines parallel to and at right angles to the palar line of the shield, irrespective of its outline. A bordure chequy must, of course, at one point or another show three distinct rows of checks.

The b.a.s.t.a.r.dising of crests even in England is a comparatively modern practice. I know of no single instance ancient or modern of the kind in Scottish heraldry, though I could mention scores of achievements in which the shields carry marks of distinction. This is valuable evidence, for no matter how lax the official practice of Scottish armory may have been at one period, the theory of Scottish armory far more nearly approaches the ancient practices and rules of heraldry {520} than does the armory of any other country. That theory is much nearer the ideal theory than the English one, but unfortunately for the practical purposes of modern heraldic needs, it does not answer so well. At the present day, therefore, a Scottish crest is not marked in any way.

Most handbooks refer to a certain rule which is supposed to exist for the differencing of a coat to denote illegitimacy when the coat is that of the mother and not the father, the supposed method being to depict the arms under a surcoat, the result being much the same as if the whole of the arms appeared in exaggerated flaunches, the remainder of the shield being left vacant except for the tincture of the surcoat. As a matter of fact only one instance is known, and consequently we must consider it as a new coat devised to bear reference to the old one, and not as a regularised method of differencing for a particular set of circ.u.mstances.

In Ireland the rules are to all intents and purposes the same as in England, with the exception of the occasional use of a sinister baton instead of a bendlet wavy sinister upon the crest. In Scotland, where Royal Licences are unknown, it is merely necessary to prove paternity, and rematriculate the arms with due and proper marks of distinction.

It was a very general idea during a former period, but subsequently to the time when the bend and bendlet sinister and the bordure were recognised as in the nature of the accepted marks of b.a.s.t.a.r.dy, and when their penal nature was admitted, that whatever mark was adopted for the purpose of indicating illegitimacy need only be borne for three generations. Some of the older authorities tell us that after that length of time had elapsed it might be discarded, and some other and less objectionable mark be taken in its place. The older writers were striving, consciously or unconsciously, to reconcile the disgrace of illegitimacy, which they knew, with heraldic facts which they also knew, and to reconcile in certain prominent families undoubted illegitimacy with unmarked arms, the probability being that their sense of justice and regard for heraldry prompted them to the remark that some other mark of distinction _ought_ to be added, whilst all the time they knew it never was. The arms of Byron, Somerset, Meinill, and Herbert are all cases where the marks of illegitimacy have been quietly dropped, entire reversion being had to the undifferenced original coat. At a time when marks of illegitimacy, both in fact and in theory, were nothing more than marks of cadency and difference from the arms of the head of the house, it was no venality of the heralds, but merely the acceptance of current ideas, that permitted them to recognise the undifferenced arms for the illegitimate descendants when there were no legitimate owners from whose claim the arms of the others needed {521} to be differentiated, and when lordships and lands had lapsed to a b.a.s.t.a.r.d branch. To this fact must be added another. The armorial control of the heralds after the days of tournaments was exercised through the Visitations and the Earl Marshal's Court. Peers were never subject to the Visitations, and so were not under control unless their arms were challenged in the Earl Marshal's Court by the rightful owner. The cases that were notorious are cases of the arms of peers.

The Visitations gave the officers of arms greater control over the arms of Commoners than they had had theretofore, and the growing social opinions upon legitimacy and marriage brought social observances more into conformity with the technical law, and made that technical law of no inheritance and no paternity an operative fact. The result is that the hard legal fact is now rigidly and rightly insisted upon, and the claim and right to arms of one of illegitimate descent depends and is made to depend solely upon the instruments creating that right, and the conditions of "due and proper marks of distinction" always subject to which the right is called into being. Nowadays there is no release from the penalty of the bordures wavy and compony save through the avenue of a new and totally different grant and the full fees payable therefor. But, as the bearer of a bordure wavy once remarked to me, "I had rather descend illegitimately from a good family and bear their arms marked than descend from a lot of n.o.bodies and use a new grant." But until the common law is altered, if it ever is, the game must be played fairly and the conditions of a Royal Licence observed, for the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.

Although I have refrained from giving any extended list of b.a.s.t.a.r.dised coats as examples of the rules for indicating illegitimacy, reference may nevertheless be made to various curious examples.

The canton has occasionally been used. Sir John de Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Suss.e.x, and Warenne (d. 1347), bore a canton of the arms of his mother, Alice de Nerford ["Gules, a lion rampant ermine"], over the chequy shield of Warren. A similar instance can be found in modern times, the arms of Charlton of Apley Castle, co. Salop, being b.a.s.t.a.r.dised by a sinister canton which bears two coats quarterly, these coats having formerly been quarterings borne in the usual manner.

The custom of placing the paternal arms upon a bend has been occasionally adopted, but this of course is the creation of a _new_ coat. It was followed by the Beauforts before their legitimation, and by Sir Roger de Clarendon, the illegitimate son of the Black Prince. The Somerset family, who derived illegitimately from the Beauforts, Dukes of Somerset, first debruised the Beaufort arms by {522} a bendlet sinister, but in the next generation the arms were placed upon a wide fess, this on a plain field of or. Although the Somersets, Dukes of Beaufort, have discarded all signs of b.a.s.t.a.r.dy from their shield, the version upon the fess was continued as one of the quarterings upon the arms of the old Shropshire family of Somerset Fox. One of the most curious b.a.s.t.a.r.dised coats is that of Henry Fitz-Roy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, illegitimate son of Henry VIII. This shows the Royal Arms within a bordure quarterly ermine and counter-compony or and azure, debruised by a baton sinister argent, an inescutcheon quarterly gules and vaire, or and vert [possibly hinting at the Blount arms of his mother, barry nebuly or and sable], over all a lion rampant argent, on a chief azure a tower between two stags' heads caboshed argent, attired or.

{523}

CHAPTER x.x.xIII

THE MARSHALLING OF ARMS

The science of marshalling is the conjoining of two or more coats of arms upon one shield for the purpose of indicating sovereignty, dominion, alliance, descent, or pretension, according to recognised rules and regulations, by the employment of which the story of any given achievement shall be readily translatable.

The methods of marshalling are (1) dimidiation, (2) impalement, (3) quartering, (4) superimposition.

Instances of quartered shields are to be met with possibly before impalements or dimidiation. The earliest attempt at anything like a regularised method of procedure to signify marriage was that usually males _quartered_ the arms of their wives or ancestresses from whom they acquired their lands; whilst impaled coats were to all intents and purposes the armorial bearings of married women, or more frequently of widows who took an immediate interest in their husbands' property. This ancient usage brings home very forcibly the former territorial connection of arms and land. The practice of the husband impaling the wife's arms, whether heiress or not, probably arose near the close of the fifteenth century. Even now it is laid down that the arms of a wife should not in general be borne upon the husband's banner, surcoat, or official seal.

But impalement as we now know it was preceded by dimidiation. Dimidiation, which was but a short-lived method, was effected by the division of the shield down the centre. On the dexter side was placed the dexter half of the husband's arms, and on the sinister side was placed the sinister half of the wife's arms. With some coats of arms no objection could be urged against the employment of this method. But it was liable to result (_e.g._ with two coats of arms having the same ordinary) in the creation of a design which looked far more like one simple coat than a conjunction of two. The dimidiation of "argent, a bend gules" and "argent, a chevron sable" would simply result in a single coat "argent, a bend per pale gules and sable." This fault of the system must have made itself manifest at an early period, for we soon find it became customary to introduce about two-thirds of {524} the design of each coat for the sake of demonstrating their separate character. It must soon thereafter have become apparent that if two-thirds of the design of a coat of arms could be squeezed into half of the shield there was no valid reason why the whole of the design could not be employed. This therefore became customary under the name of impalement, and the practice has ever since remained with us. Few examples indeed of dimidiation are to be met with, and as a practical method of conjunction, the practice was chiefly in vogue during the earlier part of the fourteenth century.

Occasionally quartered coats were dimidiated, in which case the first and third quarters of the husband's coat were conjoined with the second and fourth of the wife's. As far as outward appearance went, this practice resulted in the fact that no distinction existed from a plain quartered coat. Thus the seal of Margaret of Bavaria, Countess of Holland, and wife of John, Count de Nevers, in 1385 (afterwards Duke of Burgundy), bears a shield on which is apparently a simple instance of quartering, but really a dimidiated coat. The two coats to the dexter side of the palar line are: In chief Burgundy-Modern ("France-Ancient, a bordure compony argent and gules"), and in base Burgundy-Ancient. On the sinister side the coat in chief is Bavaria ("Bendy-lozengy argent and azure"); and the one in base contains the quartered arms of Flanders ("Or, a lion rampant sable"); and Holland ("Or, a lion rampant gules"); the lines dividing these latter quarters being omitted, as is usually found to be the case with this particular shield.

Certain examples can be found amongst the Royal Arms in England which show much earlier instances of dimidiation. The arms of Margaret of France, who died in 1319, the second queen of Edward I., as they remain on her tomb in Westminster Abbey, afford an example of this method of conjunction. The arms of England appear on the dexter side of the escocheon; and this coat undergoes a certain amount of curtailment, though the dimidiation is not complete, portions only of the hindmost parts of the lions being cut off by the palar line. The coat of France, on the sinister side, of course does not readily indicate the dimidiation.

Boutell, in his chapter on marshalling in "Heraldry, Historical and Popular," gives several early examples of dimidiation. The seal of Edmond Plantagenet, Earl of Cornwall (d. 1300), bears his arms (those of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and King of the Romans) dimidiating those of his wife, Margaret de Clare. Here only the sinister half of his bordure is removed, while the Clare coat ("Or, three chevrons gules") is entirely dimidiated, and the chevrons are little distinguishable from bends. Both coats are dimidiated in other examples mentioned {525} by Boutell, viz. William de Valence and his wife, and Alianore Montendre and her husband Guy Ferre. On the seal of Margaret Campbell, wife of Alexander Napier, in 1531, the shield shows upon the dexter side the arms of Lennox, and on the sinister the dimidiated coat (the sinister half of the quartered arms) of Campbell and Lorn. This results in the galley of Lorn being in chief, and the Campbell gyrons in base.

An early and interesting Irish example of this kind of marshalling is afforded by a dimidiated coat of Clare and Fitzgerald, which now figures on the official seal of the Provosts of Youghal (Clare: "Or, three chevrons gules." Fitzgerald: "Argent, a saltire gules, with a label of five points in chief"). Both these coats are halved. They result from the marriage of Richard Clare, Earl of Hertford, with Juliana, daughter and heir of Maurice Fitzgerald, feudal lord of Inchiquin and Youghal.

An even more curious case of dimidiation comes to light in the arms formerly used by the Abbey of St. Etienne at Caen, in which the arms of England and those attributed to the Duchy of Normandy ("Gules, two lions pa.s.sant guardant or") were dimidiated, so that in the former half three of the fore-quarters of the lions appear, while in the sinister half only two of the hind-quarters are represented.

Dimidiation was not always effected by conjunction down the palar line, other part.i.tion lines of the shield being occasionally, though very rarely, employed in this manner.

Certain curious (now indivisible) coats of arms remain which undoubtedly originated in the dimidiation of two separate coats, _e.g._ the arms of Yarmouth, Sandwich, Hastings, Rye, and Chester. In all cases some Royal connection can be traced which has caused the Royal Arms of England to be conjoined with the earlier devices of fish, ships, or garbs which had been employed by the towns in question. It is worth the pa.s.sing thought, however, whether the conjoined lions and hulks used by the Cinque Ports may not originally have been a device of the Sovereign for naval purposes, or possibly the naval version of the Royal Arms (see page 182).

One other remainder from the practice of dimidiation still survives amongst the presently existing rules of heraldry. It is a rule to which no modern authoritative exception can be mentioned. When a coat within a bordure is impaled with another coat, the bordure is not continued down the centre of the shield, but stops short at top and bottom when the palar line is reached. This rule is undoubtedly a result of the ancient method of conjunction by dimidiation, but the curious point is that, at the period when dimidiation was employed and during the period which followed, some number of examples can be {526} found where the bordure is continued round the whole coat which is within it.

The arms of man and wife are now conjoined according to the following rules:--If the wife is not an heraldic heiress the two coats are impaled.

If the wife be an heraldic heir or coheir, in lieu of impalement the arms of her family are placed on an inescutcheon superimposed on the centre of her husband's arms, the inescutcheon being termed an escutcheon of pretence, because _jure uxoris_ she being an heiress of her house, the husband "pretends" to the representation of her family.

For heraldic purposes it therefore becomes necessary to define the terms heir and heiress. It is very essential that the point should be thoroughly understood, because quarterings other than those of augmentation can only be inherited from or through female ancestors who are in themselves heirs or coheirs (this is the true term, or, rather, the ancient term, though they are now usually referred to colloquially as heiresses or coheiresses) in blood, or whose issue subsequently become in a later generation the representatives of any ancestor in the male line of that female ancestor. A woman is an "heir" or "heiress" (1) if she is an only child; (2) if all her brothers die without leaving any issue to survive, either male or female; (3) she becomes an heiress "in her issue," as it is termed, if she die leaving issue herself if and when all the descendants male and female of her brothers become absolutely extinct. The term "coheir" or "coheiress" is employed in cases similar to the foregoing when, instead of one daughter, there are two or more.

No person can be "heir" or "coheir" of another person until the latter is dead, though he or she may be heir-apparent or heir-presumptive. Though the word "heir" is frequently used with regard to material matters, such usage is really there incorrect, except in cases of intestacy. A person benefiting under a will is a legatee of money, or a devisee of land, and not an heir to either. The table on page 527 may make things a little clearer, but in the following remarks intestacy is ignored, and the explanations apply solely to _heirship of blood_.

Charles in the accompanying pedigree is, after 1800, _heir_ of David.

Thomas is _heir-apparent_ of Charles, being a son and the eldest born. He dies _v.p._ (_vita patris_, _i.e._ in the lifetime of his father) and never becomes heir. A daughter can never become an heir-apparent, as there is always, during the lifetime of her father, the possibility of a son being born. Mary, Ellen, and Blanche are coheirs of Thomas their father, whom they survive, and they are also coheirs of their grandfather Charles, to whom they succeed, and they would properly in a pedigree be described as both. They are heirs-general of Thomas, Charles, and David, and, being the heirs of the senior line, they are heirs-general or coheirs-general of their house. David being possessed of the barony "by writ" of Cilfowyr, it would "fall into abeyance" at the death of Charles between the three daughters equally.

{527}

DAVID CILFOWYR, created Duke of London in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, remainder to him and the heirs male of his body, was Earl of Edinburgh in the Peerage of Scotland (with remainder to his heirs), and Lord Cilfowyr by writ in the Peerage of England (with remainder to his heirs-general). Died 1800.

-------------------------------------------------- CHARLES CILFOWYR, OWEN CILFOWYR, Esq., elder son and heir; head of commonly called Lord Owen his house, Duke of London, Cilfowyr by courtesy.

Earl of Edinburgh, and Lord Cilfowyr. Died 1870.

Died 1840. -------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CILFOWYR, Esq., PHILIP CILFOWYR, Esq., eldest son, becomes heir second son. Died 1879. male of his house in 1880 at the death of George, and ADA, only child, has as such succeeds as Duke of no courtesy t.i.tle. London. Died 1896. Living in 1900. HARRIET CILFOWYR, only child, by CECIL CILFOWYR, Esq., courtesy after 1880 third son. When his brother Lady Harriet Cilfowyr. succeeds in 1880 as Duke of Died 1897. London he pet.i.tions the Queen for that style and precedence which he would have enjoyed had his father lived to inherit the Dukedom.

His pet.i.tion being granted, he becomes by courtesy Lord Cecil Cilfowyr, until he succeeds in 1896, at the death of his brother, to the Dukedom of London.

--------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS CILFOWYR, Esq., ISABEL CILFOWYR, eldest son and heir-apparent, styled by courtesy as styled Earl of Edinburgh by Lady Isabel Cilfowyr.

courtesy. Died _v.p._ Living 1900.

1830, so never succeeds. IRENE CILFOWYR, styled by courtesy as Lady Irene Cilfowr Living 1900.

---------------- EDMOND CILFOWYR, Esq., second son, styled by courtesy courtesy Lord Edmond Cilfowyr until 1840, when he succeeds as Duke of London. Died 1850. -------------- JOHN CILFOWYR, Esq., = EDITH TORKINGTON, third son, styled by succeeds in 1861 as courtesy Lord John Cilfowyr _suo jure_ Baroness until 1850, when he Neville by writ in England, succeeds as Duke of London. and Countess of Torkington London. Died 1870. (to herself and her heirs) in Scotland. Died 1862.

----------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- MARY CILFOWYR, ELLEN CILFOWYR, BLANCHE CILFOWYR, Countess of styled by courtesy styled by courtesy Edinburgh. Lady Ellen Cilfowyr. Lady Blanche Cilfowyr. Living 1900. Living 1900. Living 1900. _Heir of Line._ ------------------------------------------- The Barony of Cilfowyr falls into abeyance between these three equally. In Scottish phraseology they are termed heirs portioners. --------------------------------- GRACE CILFOWYR, MURIEL CILFOWYR, styled by courtesy styled by courtesy Lady Grace Cilfowyr, Lady Muriel Cilfowyr. elder dau. Living 1900. Living 1900. --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE CILFOWYR, Esq., ALICE CILFOWYR, only son, and so styled styled by courtesy until 1850, when his father succeeds Lady Alice Cilfowyr until as Duke of London. As son of a Duke 1885, when she succeeds as he then becomes by courtesy Lord George Countess of Torkington. Cilfowyr, and this is his proper Died 1887, _s.p._ description, because his father has no minor t.i.tle which he could a.s.sume. But by a quite modern custom which has ------------------------- sprung up of late years he would very probably call himself "Lord Cilfowyr." ANNIE CILFOWYR, = REGINALD In 1861 his mother succeeds in her styled by courtesy SHERWIN.

own right to two t.i.tles, and by Lady Annie Cilfowyr Died 1872.

courtesy he would thenceforward be and Lady Annie styled by her minor t.i.tle as Lord Sherwin. Died 1870. Neville until her death in 1862, when he becomes Earl of Torkington in his own right and also Lord Neville. ---------------------- At his father's death in 1870 he becomes Duke of London. Died 1880. LILIAN SHERWIN, only daughter, known as Lady Lilian Sherwin DOROTHY CILFOWYR, styled until 1896, when she Lady Dorothy Cilfowyr until 1880, succeeds as Countess when she becomes _suo jure_ of Torkington and Countess of Torkington and Baroness Baroness Neville.

Neville. Died _s.p._ 1885. Living 1900.

ARTHUR SHERWIN, only son and heir, succeeds as Earl of Torkington and Lord Neville in 1887, at the death of his aunt. Died 1888.

------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SHERWIN, called JANE SHERWIN, by courtesy Lady Maria Sherwin, by courtesy Lady Jane succeeds in 1888 as Countess of Sherwin, succeeds as Torkington and senior coheir Countess of Torkington to the Barony of Neville, in 1889, but the which falls into abeyance between Barony of Neville again herself and her sisters. The falls into abeyance Queen determines the abeyance between herself and her in her favour, and she consequently younger sister. becomes also Baroness Died _s.p._ 1890. Neville. Died _s.p._ 1889. ------------- HANNAH SHERWIN, called by courtesy Lady Hannah Sherwin.

She succeeds in 1890 as sole heir of her father, and consequently the abeyance determines of itself, and she becomes both Countess of Torkington and Baroness Neville.

Died _s.p._ 1896.

{528}

In Scotland Mary, Ellen, and Blanche would be termed "heirs portioners,"

and Mary, being an heiress and the eldest born in the direct and senior line, would be termed the "heir of line." David being possessed of an ancient Scottish peerage not limited to males (the Earldom of Edinburgh), Mary, the heir of line, would at once succeed in her own right as Countess of Edinburgh on the death of her grandfather Charles. If the family were an unt.i.tled Scottish family ent.i.tled to supporters, these would descend to Mary unless they had been specifically granted with some other limitation.

At the death of Thomas in 1830 Edmond becomes heir male apparent, and at the death of his father in 1840 Edmond becomes heir male of his house until his death. David having been created a peer (Duke of London) with remainder to the heirs male of his body, Edmond succeeded as Duke of London at the death of Charles in 1840. Grace and Muriel are coheirs of Edmond after his death. They are _not_ either coheirs or heirs-general of Charles, in spite of the fact that their father was his heir male. At the death of Charles in 1840, when Edmond succeeded as heir male, John succeeded as heir male presumptive to Edmond. He was not heir-apparent, because a son might at any moment have been born to Edmond. An heir-apparent and an heir-presumptive cannot exist at the same time, for whilst there is an heir-apparent there cannot be an heir-presumptive. John succeeded as heir male of his house, and therefore as Duke of London, in 1850, at the death of his elder brother Edmond; but, though John was the "heir male" of his said elder brother, he was _not_ his "heir" (Grace and Muriel being the coheirs of Edmond), nor was he the "heir male of the body" of Edmond, not being descended from him.

John, however, was "heir male of the body" of Charles. George is heir-apparent of John until his death in 1870, when George succeeds as "heir" of his father and heir male of his house, and consequently Duke of London. At his death in 1880 Dorothy becomes the "sole heir," or, more properly, the "sole heir-general," of her father George; but his kinsman Robert becomes his "heir male," and therefore Duke of London, in spite of the fact that there was a much nearer male relative, viz. a nephew, Arthur, the son of his sister. Robert also becomes the heir male of the body of Owen and heir male of his house, and as such Duke of London. He would also be generally described as the heir male of the body of David.

At the death of Dorothy in 1885 her coheirs were her aunt Alice and her cousin Arthur equally, and though these really were the coheirs {529} of _Dorothy_ (the claims of Alice and Annie being equal, and the rights of Annie having devolved upon Arthur), they would more usually be found described as the coheirs of George or of John. Annie was never _herself_ really a coheir, because she died before her brother, but "in her issue"

she became the coheir of Dorothy, though she would, after 1885, be usually described as "in her issue" a coheir of George, or possibly even of John, though this would be an inexact description. Arthur was heir of his mother after 1870, heir of his father after 1872, and heir-apparent of his father before that date; after 1885 he is a coheir of Dorothy, and after 1887 sole heir of Dorothy and sole heir of Alice. He would also be usually described as heir-general of George, and heir-general of John. Let us suppose that John had married Edith Torkington, an English baroness (_suo jure_) by writ (Baroness Neville), who had died in 1862. At that date the barony would have descended to her eldest son George until his death in 1880, when Dorothy, _suo jure_, would have succeeded. At her death in 1885 the barony would have fallen into abeyance between Alice and Arthur. At the death of Alice in 1887 the abeyance would be at an end, and the barony in its entirety would have devolved upon Arthur, who would have enjoyed it until at his death in 1888 the barony would have again fallen into abeyance between Maria, Jane, and Hannah equally. It is not unlikely that Her Majesty might have "determined the abeyance," or "called the barony out of abeyance" (the meanings of the terms are identical) in favour of Maria, who would consequently have enjoyed the barony in its entirety. At her death in 1889 it would again fall into abeyance between Jane and Hannah. At Jane's death in 1890 Hannah became sole heir, and the abeyance came to an end when Hannah succeeded to the barony. At her death it would pa.s.s to her aunt Lilian. Hannah would usually be described as "coheir and subsequently sole heir of" Arthur. If the Baroness Neville had been possessed of an ancient Scottish Peerage (the Earldom of Torkington) it would have pa.s.sed undividedly and in full enjoyment to the heir of line, _i.e._ in 1862 to George, 1880 to Dorothy, 1885 to Alice, 1887 to Arthur, 1888 to Maria, 1889 to Jane, 1890 to Hannah, and 1896 to Lilian, the last (shown on the pedigree) in remainder. Lilian does not become an heiress until 1896, when the whole issue of her brother becomes extinct. Irene and Isabel never become heirs at all.