A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 63

Robert, as we have seen, became heir male of his house and Duke of London in 1880. At his death (1896) Harriet becomes sole heir of Robert, but at her death in 1897 his niece Ada, the only child of his younger brother Philip, who had predeceased him, would be usually referred to as heir of Robert, whilst Cecil is heir male of his house. {530}

When the term "of the body" is employed, _actual descent_ from that person is signified, _e.g._ Arthur after 1885 is "collateral" heir-general of Dorothy, but "heir-general of the body" of Edith Torkington.

An "heir of entail," or, to use the Scottish term, the "heir of tailzie,"

is merely the person succeeding to _property_ under a specific remainder contained in a deed of entail. This has no relation to heirship in blood, and the term, from an armorial point of view, might be entirely disregarded, were it not that some number of Scottish coats of arms, and a greater number of Scottish supporters, and some Scottish peerages and baronetcies, are specifically granted and limited to the heirs of entail.

There are a few similar English grants following upon Royal Licences for change of name and arms.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 742.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 743.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 744.]

The term "heir in expectancy" is sometimes heard, but it is not really a proper term, and has no exact or legal meaning. When George was alive his daughter Dorothy was his heir-presumptive, but supposing that Dorothy were a Catholic nun and Alice a lunatic, in each of which cases there would be very little likelihood of any marriage ever taking place, Arthur would very generally be described as "heir in expectancy," for though he was neither heir-apparent nor heir-presumptive, all probability pointed to the eventual succession of himself or his issue.

Anybody is said to be "in remainder" to entailed property or a peerage if he is included within the recited limits of the entail or peerage. The "heir in remainder" is the person next ent.i.tled to succeed after the death of the existing holder.

Thus (excluding heirs in expectancy and women who are {531} heirs-presumptive) a marriage with any woman who is an heir or coheir results in her arms being placed upon an escutcheon of pretence over the arms of the husband. In the cases of all other women the arms are "impaled"

only. To "impale two coats" the shield is divided by a straight line down the centre, the whole design of the arms of the husband being placed on the dexter side of the escutcheon, and the whole design of the wife's arms being placed on the sinister side (Fig. 742).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 745.]

It may perhaps be as well to here exemplify the different methods of the conjunction of the arms of man and wife, arranging the same two coats in the different methods in which they might be marshalled before reverting to ancient practices.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 746.]

An ordinary commoner impales his wife's arms as in Fig. 742. If she be an heiress, he places them on an escutcheon of pretence as in Fig. 743. If the husband, not being a Knight, is, however, a Companion of an Order of Knighthood, this does not (except in the case of the Commanders of the Victorian Order) give him the right to use the circle of his Order round his arms, and his badge is simply hung below the escutcheon, the arms of the wife being impaled or placed on an escutcheon of pretence thereupon as the case may necessitate. The wife of a Knight Bachelor shares the state and rank with her husband, and the only difference is in the helmet (Fig.

744). But if the husband be a knight of any order, the ensigns of that order are personal to himself, and cannot be shared with his wife, and consequently two shields are employed. On the dexter shield are the arms of the husband with the circle of his order of knighthood, and on the sinister shield are the arms of the husband impaling the arms of the wife. Some meaningless decoration, usually a wreath of oak-leaves, is placed round the sinister shield to "balance," from the artistic point, the {532} ribbon, or the ribbon and collar, as the case may be, of the order of knighthood of the husband (Fig. 745). A seeming exception to this rule in the case of the recent warrant to Queen Alexandra, whose arms, impaled by those of His Majesty, are depicted impaled within the Garter, is perhaps explained by the fact that Her Majesty is herself a member of that Order. A Knight Grand Cross, of course, adds his collar to the dexter shield, and if he has supporters, these are placed outside the _two_ shields.

A peer impales the arms of his wife as in the case of a commoner, the arms of the wife being, of course, under the protection of the supporters, coronet, and helmet of the peer (Fig. 746). If, in addition to being a peer, he is also a knight of an order, he follows the rules which prescribe the use of two shields as already described.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 747.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 748.]

Supposing the wife to be a peeress in her own right, she cannot nowadays confer any rank whatever upon her husband; consequently, if she marry a commoner, the husband places her arms upon an escutcheon of pretence surmounted by a coronet of her rank, but the supporters belonging to her peerage cannot be added to his shield. The arms of the wife are consequently repeated alone, but in this case upon a lozenge on the sinister side of the husband's shield. Above this lozenge is placed the coronet of her rank, and the supporters belonging to her peerage are placed on either side of the lozenge (Fig. 747). But the arms of a peeress in her own right are frequently represented on a lozenge without any reference to the arms of her husband. In the case of a peeress in her own right marrying a peer, the arms of the peeress are placed upon an escutcheon of pretence in the centre of {533} her husband's shield, the only difference being that this escutcheon of pretence is surmounted by the coronet belonging to the peerage of the wife; and on the sinister side the arms of the wife are repeated upon a lozenge with the supporters and coronet belonging to her own peerage. It is purely an artistic detail, but it is a happy conceit in such an instance to join together the compartments upon which the two pairs of supporters stand to emphasise the fact that the whole is in reality but one achievement (Fig. 748).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 749.]

Now, it is not uncommon to see an achievement displayed in this manner, for there have been several instances in recent years of peeresses in their own right who have married peers. Every woman who _inherits_ a peerage must of necessity be an heir or coheir, and, as will have been seen, the laws of armory provide for this circ.u.mstance; but supposing that the peeress were a peeress by creation and were not an heiress, how would her arms be displayed? Apparently it would not be permissible to place them on an escutcheon of pretence, and consequently there is no way upon the husband's shield of showing that his wife is a peeress in her own right. Such an instance did arise in the case of the late Baroness Stratheden, who was created a peeress whilst not being an heiress. Her husband was subsequently created Baron Campbell. Now, how were the arms of Lord Campbell and Lady Stratheden and Campbell displayed? I think I am correct in saying that not a single textbook on armory recites the method which should be employed, and I candidly confess that I myself am quite ignorant upon the point.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 750.]

All the foregoing are simply instances of how to display the arms of man and wife, or, to speak more correctly, they are instances of the methods _in which a man should bear arms for himself and his wife when he is married_; for the helmet and mantling clearly indicate that it is the man's coat of arms, and not the woman's. In olden days, when the husband possessed everything, this might have been enough for all the circ.u.mstances which were likely to occur.

A lady whilst unmarried bears arms on a lozenge (Fig. 749), and upon becoming a widow, bears again upon a lozenge the arms of her husband impaled with the arms borne by her father (Fig. 750), or with the latter upon an escutcheon of pretence if the widow be herself an {534} heiress (Fig. 751). The widow of a knight has no way whatever of indicating that her husband was of higher rank than an ordinary unt.i.tled gentleman. The widow of a baronet, however, places the inescutcheon with the hand of Ulster upon her husband's arms (Fig. 752). I have often heard this disputed, but a reference to the Grant Books at the College of Arms (_vide_ a grant of arms some years ago to Lady Pearce) will provide the necessary precedent. If, however, the baronetcy is of Nova Scotia, this means of indicating the rank cannot be employed. The widow of a peer (not being a peeress in her own right) uses a lozenge of her husband's and her own arms, with his supporters and his coronet (Fig. 753).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 751.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 752.]

If a peeress, after marriage with a commoner, becomes a widow she bears on the dexter side a lozenge of her late husband's arms and superimposed thereupon her own on an escutcheon of pretence surmounted by a coronet.

(The coronet, it should be noted, is over the escutcheon of pretence and not above the lozenge.) On the sinister side she bears a lozenge of her own arms alone with her supporters and with her coronet above the lozenge. The arms of the present Baroness Kinloss would show an example of such an arrangement of two lozenges, but as Lady Kinloss does not possess supporters these additions could not be introduced.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 753.]

The laws of arms provide no way in which a married woman (other than a peeress in her own right) can display arms in her own right during the lifetime of her husband, unless this is to be presumed from the method of depicting the arms of a wife upon a hatchment. In such a case, a _shield_ is used, usually suspended from a ribbon, identical with the shield of the husband, but omitting the helmet, crest, mantling, and motto.

Impalement is used occasionally in other circ.u.mstances than marriage, _i.e._ to effect conjunction of official and personal arms.

With rare exceptions, the official arms which exist are those of Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees, of the Kings of Arms, and of the {535} Regius Professors at Cambridge. Here certainly, in the ecclesiastical cases, the theory of marriage remains, the official arms being placed on the dexter side and the personal arms on the sinister, inasmuch as the laws of armory for ecclesiastics were made at a time when the clergy were celibate. The personal helmet and crest are placed above the impaled coat, except in the cases of bishops and archbishops, who, of course, use a mitre in place thereof. It is not correct to impale the arms of a wife upon the same shield which carries the impalement of an official coat of arms, because the wife does not share the office. In such a case it is necessary to make use of two shields placed side by side, as is done in conjoining the arms of a Knight of any Order with those of his wife.

In impaling the arms of a wife, it is not correct to impale more than her p.r.o.nominal coat. This is a definite rule in England, somewhat modified in Scotland, as will be presently explained. Though it has never been considered good form to impale a quartered shield, it is only recently that the real fact that such a proceeding is definitely incorrect has come to light. It appears from the State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz. xxvi. 31, 1561:--

"At a Chapitre holden by the office of Armes at the Embroyderers' Hall in London, anno 4^o Reginae Elizabethae it was agreed that no inhiritrix eyther mayde wife or widow should bear or cause to be borne any Creast or cognizance of her Ancestors otherwise than as followeth. If she be unmarried to bear in her ringe, cognizaunce or otherwise, the first coate of her ancestors in a Lozenge. And during her widowhood to set the first coate of her husbande in pale with the first coate of her Auncestors. And if she mary on who is noe gentleman, then she to be clearly exempted from the former conclusion."

Whilst this rule holds in England, it must, to a certain extent, be modified in relation to the arms of a Scottish wife. Whilst the inalienable right _to quarter arms derived_ from an heiress cannot be said to be non-existent in Scotland, it should be noted that the custom of indiscriminately quartering is much less frequent than in England, and comparatively seldom adopted, unless estates, or chief representation in an important or appreciable degree, follow the technical heraldic representation. In England the claim is always preferred to quarter the arms of an ancestress who had no brothers whether she transmitted estates or not. Of course, technically and theoretically the claim is perfectly correct, and cannot, and should not, be denied. But in practice in England it has in some cases reached a rather absurd extent, when a man on marrying an only daughter of the youngest son of the youngest branch of a family consequently acquires the right to display with his own ensigns the full arms and quarterings of {536} the head of a house from which he has inherited no lands, and which is still thriving in the senior male line. In Scottish practice such an event would be ignored, and in that country it is not usual to add quarterings to a shield, _nor are these officially recognised_ without a rematriculation of the arms. In England it is merely a question of recording the pedigree and proving heirship, and many quarterings are proved and recorded that there is not the slightest intention to use regularly. Rematriculation has a more permanent character than mere registration, inasmuch as the coat with its quarterings upon matriculation as far as usage is concerned becomes indivisible, and, consequently, for a Scottish wife the impalement should be of the indivisible arms and quarterings matriculated to her father in Lyon Register, with his bordure and other "difference" marks.

All the old armorists provide ways of impaling the arms of several wives, and consequently the idea has grown up that it is permissible and correct to bear and use the arms of two wives at the same time. This is a mistake, because, strictly and technically speaking, the right to impale the arms of a wife ceases at her death. Impalement means marriage, and when the marriage is dissolved the impalement becomes meaningless, and should be discontinued. A man cannot be married to two people at one time, nor can he as a consequence impale two coats of arms at the same time.

The matter is more clearly apparent if the question of an escutcheon of pretence be considered in place of an impalement. The escutcheon of pretence means that the husband _pretends_ to represent the family of his wife. This _jure uxoris_ he undoubtedly does whilst she is alive, but the moment she dies the _actual_ representation of her family pa.s.ses to her son and heir, and it is ridiculous for her husband to _pretend_ to represent when there is an undoubted representative in existence, and when the representation, such as it was when vested in himself, has come to an end, and pa.s.sed elsewhere. If his heiress-wife had been a peeress, he would have borne her escutcheon of pretence surmounted by her coronet; but it is ridiculous for him to continue to do so when the right to the coronet and to the peerage has pa.s.sed to his wife's heir. The same argument holds good with regard to impalement. That, of course, raises the point that in every authority (particularly in those of an earlier period) will be found details of the methods to be adopted for impaling the arms of several wives. People have quite failed to appreciate the object of these rules.

Armory from its earliest introduction has had great memorial use, and when a monument or hatchment is put up to a man it has been usual, prior to these utilitarian days of funeral reform, to memorialise _all_ the wives he has been possessed of. In the same way, in a pedigree it is necessary to {537} enumerate the names and arms of all the wives of a man. Consequently for tombs and pedigrees--when all being dead, there is no reason to indicate any particular woman as the present _wife_--plans have been devised for the combination of several coats into one memorial achievement, plans necessitated by the circ.u.mstances of the cases, and plans to which no objection can be taken. Tombs, pedigrees, and other memorials are the usual form in which the records of arms have chiefly come down to us, and from the frequency in which cases of achievements with double impalements have been preserved, a mistaken idea has arisen that it is correct to bear, and actually use and carry, two impalements at one and the same time. Outside memorial instances, I have utterly failed to find any instance in former days of a man himself using in his own lifetime two impalements, and I believe and state it to be absolutely incorrect for a man to use, say on a carriage, a bookplate, or a seal, the arms of a deceased wife. You may _have been_ married to a presently deceased woman, therefore impale her arms in a record or memorial; but no one _is_ married to a deceased woman, therefore it is wrong to advertise that you are married to her by impaling her arms; and as you cannot be married to two people at the same time, it is illogical and wrong to _use_ or carry two impalements. I know of no instance of a grant to a man of arms to bear in right of a deceased wife.

It is for these occasions of memorial and record that methods have been devised to show a man's marriage with several wives. They certainly were not devised for the purpose of enabling him to bear and use for contemporary purposes the arms of a series of dead women, the representation of whom is no longer vested in himself.

Whilst admitting that for the purposes of record or memorial rules _do_ exist, it should at the same time be pointed out that even for such occasions it is much more usual to see two shields displayed, each carrying its separate impalement, than to find two impalements on one shield. The use of a separate shield for each marriage is the method that I would strongly advocate, but as a knowledge of past observances must be had fully, if one is to read aright the records of the tombs, I recite what the rules are:--

(1) _To impale the arms of two wives._--Either the husband's arms are placed in the centre, with the first wife on the dexter and the second wife on the sinister, or else the husband's arms are placed on the dexter side, and the sinister side is divided in fess, the arms of the first wife being placed in chief and those of the second in base. The former method is the one more generally employed of the two.

(2) _Three wives._--Husband's arms in centre, first wife's on dexter side, second wife's on sinister side in chief, and third wife in base. {538}

(3) _Four wives._--Husband's in centre, first and second wives' in chief and base respectively on the dexter side, and third and fourth similarly on the sinister.

If one of two wives be an heiress her arms might be found in pretence and the other coat or coats impaled, but it is impossible in such a case to place a number to the wife, and it is impossible to display an escutcheon of pretence for more than one wife, as if the escutcheon of pretence is removed from the exact centre it at once ceases to be an escutcheon of pretence. Consequently, if more than one wife be an heiress, separate escutcheons should be used for each marriage. Plans have been drawn up and apparently accepted providing for wives up to nearly twenty in number, but no useful purpose will be served by repeating them. A man with more than four wives is unusual in this country.

Divorce nullifies marriage, and both husband and wife must at once revert to bachelor and maiden achievements respectively.

It is difficult to deduce any certain conclusions as to the ancient rules connected with impalement, for a simple reason which becomes very noticeable on an examination of ancient _seals_ and other armorial records.

In early times there can be no doubt whatever that men did not impale, or bother about the arms of wives who were not great heiresses. A man bore his own arms, and he left his father-in-law, or his brother-in-law, to bear those of the family with which he had matched. Of course, we find many cases in which the arms of a wife figure upon the husband's shield, but a careful examination of them shows that in practically every case the reason is to be found in the fact that the wife was an heiress. Husbands were called to Parliament in virtue of the peerages vested in their wives, and we cannot but come to the conclusion that whenever one finds use in early times of the arms of a wife, it is due to the fact that the husband was bearing them not because of his mere marriage, but because he was enjoying the estates, or peerage, of his wife.

For that reason we find in many cases the arms of the wife borne in preference to the paternal arms of descent, or meet with them quartered with the arms of the husband, and frequently being given precedence over his own; and on the a.n.a.logy of the coats of arms of wives at present borne with the wife's surname by the husband under Royal Licence, there can be little doubt that at a period when Royal Licences had not come into regular vogue the same idea was dominant, and the appearance of a wife's coat of arms meant the a.s.sumption of those arms by the husband as his own, with or without the surname of the wife.

The connection between name and arms was not then so stereotyped as it is at present; rather was it a connection between arms and {539} land, and perhaps more pointedly of arms and a peerage t.i.tle where this existed, for there are many points and many facts which conclusively show that at an early period a coat of arms was often considered to have a territorial limitation; or perhaps it should be said that, whilst admittedly personal, arms have territorial attributes or connection.

This is borne out by the pleadings and details remaining to us concerning the Grey and Hastings controversy, and if this territorial character of a coat of arms is admitted, together with another characteristic no less important--and certainly equally accepted--that a coat of arms could belong to but one person at the same time, it must be recognised that the appearance of a wife's arms on a husband's shield is not an instance of a sign of mere marriage or anything a.n.a.logous thereto. But when we turn to the arms of women, the condition of affairs is wholly reversed. A woman, who of course retained her ident.i.ty, drew her position from her marriage and from her husband's position, and from the very earliest period we find that whilst a man simply bore his own arms, the wife upon her seal displayed both the arms of her own family and the arms of her husband's.

Until a much later period it cannot be said to have been ordinarily customary for the husband to bear the arms of his wife unless she were an heiress, but from almost the beginning of armory the wife conjoined the arms of her husband and herself. But the instances which have come down to us from an early period of dimidiated or impaled coats are chiefly instances of the display of arms by a widow.

The methods of conjunction which can be cla.s.sed as above, however, at first seem to have been rather varied.