A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 72

Patrick, in the first quarter_, although throughout it is counterchanged.

The words in italic are important, for when the order is reversed, then that particular flag is flying upside down.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 776.--The Union Flag of 1707.]

The mode of procedure in creating flags has been much the same from one reign to another. Briefly it is this: The Sovereign seeks the advice of, and receives a report from, the Lords of the Privy Council. These councillors are "_attended by the King of Arms and Heralds, with diverse drafts prepared by them_." A decision being arrived at, an Order in Council, followed by a Royal Proclamation, makes known the character of the flag. In both Order and Proclamation it is usual to make reference to the verbal blazon, and to "_the form made by our heralds_." Thus there are three agents recognised--(1) the Sovereign, the fountain of all honours; (2) the heralds, who authoritatively blazon, outline, and register all achievements; and (3) the naval authority, as that in which are vested the duty and the power of seeing the actual bunting properly made up and properly flown. {615}

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 777.--The Union Flag of 1801.]

In keeping with this, the general mode of procedure, the Proclamations demand our attention. The Proclamation of James (1606). A high official of the College of Arms informs us that neither verbal blazon nor drawing of the first Union Flag is extant. On the other hand, in the Proclamations of 1707 and 1801 we have both blazon and drawing. The blazon has already been given of the 1801 flag (which is the one most needing a verbal blazon), and the drawings of both flags we here produce (Figs. 776 and 777). These drawings--though slightly reduced in these pages--are most careful copies of the _signed_ copies supplied to us by the official already alluded to.

In forwarding them he writes: "_They are not drawn to scale_;" and he adds, further on, "_they are exactly the same size as recorded in our books_." So then we have, in these two drawings, the heralds' interpretation, _at the time_, of their own verbal blazon. Now comes the Admiralty part of the work. In the Admiralty Regulations we have a "_Memorandum relative to the origin of the Union Flag in its present form_." In this there is a brief history of the changes made in the flag from time to time, with quotations from the warrants, together with the verbal blazon AND two coloured drawings (Figs. 778 and 779). The Admiralty has also appended to the Memorandum the following interesting and ingeniously worked out _Table of Proportions, adapted for a flag 15 feet by 7 feet_. Presumably this table forms the basis upon which all Union Flags are made up under Admiralty supervision:--

ft. in.

The + of { St. George 1/5 } together 1/3 { 1 6 } 1/3 { Two borders 1/15 each 2/15 } { 1 0 }

{ St. Patrick 1/15 } together 1/10 { 0 6 } The of { Its border 1/30 } { 0 3 } 1/5 { St. Andrew 1/10 0 9 }

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 778.--Admiralty Pattern of 1707 Flag.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 779.--Admiralty Pattern of 1801 Flag.]

The student of heraldry will observe that this table is based on the proportions of the Ordinaries and Sub-Ordinaries figuring on the flag, as those proportions are regulated by English Rules of Armory. These rules give a cross as 1/3, a saltire as 1/5, a fimbriation about 1/20, of {616} the flag's width. By the way, we notice here, yet only to dismiss it as hypercritical, the objection taken to the employment (in the verbal blazon of 1801) of the term "_fimbriated_." To our mind this objection seems a storm in a teacup. Further, it is always admissible in armory to lessen the size of charges when these crowd a field, and although we are fully aware that the laws of armory are not always nor all of them applied to flags, yet there is sufficient evidence to show that the heralds and the Admiralty did recognise the cases of shields and flags to be somewhat a.n.a.logous. But there are two features in _The Admiralty pattern_ which cannot but arrest the attention of all those who have made a study of armory. The one is that the sub-ordinaries, _i.e._ the fimbriations, have different proportions given to them, although they are repet.i.tions of the same sub-ordinary, and also seem guarded against such treatment by the very wording of the blazon, and by the practice usual in such cases. And the other is that, after counterchanging the saltires, the St. Patrick is attenuated by having its fimbriation taken off its own field, instead (as the common custom is) off the field of the flag.

All Warrants dealing with flags provide for their being flown _at sea_ (Queen Anne's Proclamation is apparently the first that adds "_and land_"), and gradually reserve for the Royal Navy--or fighting ships--the honour of alone bearing the Union Jack. The accompanying diagram shows at a glance the changes made by the several Proclamations. The latest word on this subject is "The Merchant Shipping (Colours) Act of Queen Victoria, 1894."

This Acts sets forth among other things that--(1) "_The red ensign usually worn by merchant ships, without any defacement or modification whatsoever, is hereby declared to be the proper national colours for all ships and boats belonging to any British subject, except in the case of Her Majesty's ships or boats, or in the case of any other ship or boat for the time being allowed to wear any other national colours in {617} pursuance of a warrant from Her Majesty or from the Admiralty._ (2) _If any distinctive national colours except such red ensign, or except the Union Jack with a white border, or if any colours usually worn by Her Majesty's ships, &c. ... are or is hoisted on board any ship ... without warrant ... for each offence ... a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds._" {618}

CHAPTER XLII

"SEIZE-QUARTIERS"

PROOF OF ANCESTRY

If any heraldic term has been misunderstood in this country, "Seize-Quartiers" is that term. One hears "Seize-Quartiers" claimed right and left, whereas in British armory it is only on the very rarest occasions that proof of it can be made. In England there is not, and never has been, for any purpose a real "test" of blood. By the statutes of various Orders of Knighthood, esquires of knights of those orders are required to show that their grandparents were of gentle birth and ent.i.tled to bear arms, and a popular belief exists that Knights of Justice of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England need to establish some test of birth. The wording of the statute, however, is very loose and vague, and in fact, judging from the names and arms of some of the knights, must be pretty generally ignored. But Peer, K.G., or C.B., alike need pa.s.s no test of birth. The present state of affairs in this country is the natural outcome of the custom of society, which always recognises the wife as of the husband's status, whatever may have been her antecedents, unless the discrepancy is too glaring to be overlooked. In England few indeed care or question whether this person or that person has even a coat of arms; and in the decision of Society upon a given question as to whether this person or the other has "married beneath himself," the judgment results solely from the circle in which the wife and her people move. By many this curious result is claimed as an example of, and as a telling instance to demonstrate, the broad-minded superiority of the English race, as evidenced by the equality which this country concedes between t.i.tled and unt.i.tled cla.s.ses, between official and unofficial personages, between the land-owning and the mercantile communities. But such a conclusion is most superficial. We draw no distinction, and rightly so, between t.i.tled and unt.i.tled amongst the few remaining families who have held and owned their lands for many generations; but outside this cla.s.s the confusion is great, and to a close observer it is plainly enough apparent that great distinctions are drawn. But they are often mistaken ones. That the rigid and definite dividing {619} line between patrician and plebeian, which still exists so much more markedly upon the Continent, can only be traced most sketchily in this country is due to two causes--(1) the fact that in early days, when Society was slowly evolving itself, many younger sons of gentle families embarked upon commercial careers, natural family affection, because of such action, preventing a rigid exclusion from the ranks of Society of every one tainted by commerce; (2) the absence in this country of any equivalent of the patent distinguishing marks "de," "van," or "von,"

which exist among our neighbours in Europe.

The result has been that in England there is no possible way (short of specific genealogical investigation) in which it can be ascertained whether any given person is of gentle birth, and the corollary of this last-mentioned fact is that any real test is ignored. There are few families in this country, outside the Roman Catholic aristocracy (whose marriages are not quite so haphazard as are those of other people), who can show that all their sixteen great-great-grandparents were in their own right ent.i.tled to bear arms. That is the true definition of the "Proof of Seize-Quartiers."

In other words, to prove Seize-Quartiers you must show this right to have existed for

Self. Parents. Grand- Gt.-grand- Gt.-gt.-grand- parents. parents. parents.

1. Your Father's Father's Father's Father.

2. Your Father's Father's Father's Mother.

3. Your Father's Father's Mother's Father.

4. Your Father's Father's Mother's Mother.

5. Your Father's Mother's Father's Father.

6. Your Father's Mother's Father's Mother.

7. Your Father's Mother's Mother's Father.

8. Your Father's Mother's Mother's Mother.

9. Your Mother's Father's Father's Father.

10. Your Mother's Father's Father's Mother.

11. Your Mother's Father's Mother's Father.

12. Your Mother's Father's Mother's Mother.

13. Your Mother's Mother's Father's Father.

14. Your Mother's Mother's Father's Mother.

15. Your Mother's Mother's Mother's Father.

16. Your Mother's Mother's Mother's Mother.

It should be distinctly understood that there is no connection whatever between the list of quarterings which may have been inherited, which it is permissible to display, and "Seize-Quartiers," which should never be marshalled together or displayed as quarterings.

Few people indeed in this country can prove the more coveted distinction of "Trente Deux Quartiers," the only case that has ever come under my notice being that of the late Alfred Joseph, Baron Mowbray, Segrave, and Stourton, for whom an emblazonment of his {620} thirty-two quarters was prepared under the direction of Stephen Tucker, Esq., Somerset Herald.

After many futile trials (in order to add an existing English example), which have only too surely confirmed my opinion as to the rarity of "Seize-Quartiers" in this country, it has been found possible in the case of the Duke of Leinster, and details of the "proof" follow:--

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

AUGUSTUS FREDERICK (FITZ{ WILLIAM ROBERT (FITZ GERALD), 2nd Duke of GERALD), 3rd Duke of { Leinster, K.P., born 13th March 1749, married Leinster, born 21st { 7th November 1775, died 20th October 1804.= August 1791, married { 16th June 1818, died { Hon. EMILIA OLIVIA ST. GEORGE, dau. of Usher 10th October 1874= { (St. George), Baron St. George of Hatley { St. George.

{ CHARLES (STANHOPE), 3rd Earl of Harrington, Lady CHARLOTTE AUGUSTA { G.C.H., born 17th March 1853, married 23rd May (STANHOPE), born 15th { 1779, died 5th September 1859.= February 1793, died 15th{ February 1859. { JANE, dau. and co-heir of Sir John Fleming, { Bart., of Brompton Park.

GEORGE GRANVILLE { GEORGE GRANVILLE (LEVESON-GOWER), 1st Duke of (SUTHERLAND-LEVESON- { Sutherland, K.G., born 9th January 1758, GOWER, formerly Leveson-{ married 4th September 1785, died 5th July 1833.

Gower), 2nd Duke of {= Sutherland, K.G., born { 8th August 1786, married{ ELIZABETH, _suo jure_ Countess of Sutherland, 28th May 1823, died 28th{ born 24th May 1765, died 29th January 1839.

February 1861= {

{ GEORGE (HOWARD), 6th Earl of Carlisle, K.G., Lady HARRIET ELIZABETH { born 17th September 1773, married 11th March GEORGIANA HOWARD, born { 1801, died 7th October 1848.= 21st May 1806, died 27th{ October 1868. { Lady GEORGIANA CAVENDISH, eldest dau. and co- { heir of William, 5th Duke of Devonshire, K.G.

WILLIAM (DUNCOMBE), 2nd { CHARLES (DUNCOMBE), 1st Baron Feversham, born Baron Feversham, born { 5th December 1764, married 24th September 1795, 14th January 1798, { died 16th July 1841.= married 18th December { 1823, died 11th February{ Lady CHARLOTTE LEGGE, only dau. of William, 2nd 1867= { Earl of Dartmouth, died 5th November 1848.

{ GEORGE (STEWART), 8th Earl of Galloway, K.T., { born 24th March 1768, married 18th April 1797, Lady LOUISA STEWART, { died 27th March 1834.= died 5th March 1889= { { Lady JANE PAGET, dau. of Henry, 1st Earl of { Uxbridge, died 30th June 1842.

Right Hon. Sir JAMES { Sir JAMES GRAHAM, 1st Bart., of Netherby, born ROBERT GEORGE GRAHAM, { April 1761, married 28th September 1782, died 2nd Bart., P.C., G.C.B.,{ 13th April 1824.= born 1st June 1792, died{ 25th October 1861= { Lady CATHERINE STEWART, dau. of John, 7th Earl { of Galloway, died 20th September 1836.

{ Colonel JAMES CALLANDER of Craigforth, born f.a.n.n.y CALLANDER, married{ 1774, died ----, married (as his 3rd wife) 8th July 1819, died 25th{ 1776.= October 1857. { { Lady ELIZABETH MACDONNEL, dau. of Alexander, { 5th Earl of Antrim, died 1796.

CHARLES WILLIAM Lady CAROLINE WILLIAM ERNEST MABEL VIOLET (FITZ GERALD), 4th SUTHERLAND-LEVESON (DUNCOMBE), 1st GRAHAM.

Duke of Leinster, -GOWER, born 15th Earl of Feversham born 30th March April 1827, died (created 1868), 1819, married 30th 13th May 1887. born 28th January October 1847, died 1829, married 7th 10th February 1887= August 1851=

GERALD (FITZ GERALD), 5th Duke of Lady HERMIONE WILHELMINA DUNCOMBE, Leinster, born 16th August 1851, born 30th March 1864, died 19th married 17th January 1884, died 1st March 1895.

December 1893.=

The Most n.o.ble MAURICE (FITZ GERALD), Duke of Leinster, Marquess and Earl of Kildare, co. Kildare, Earl and Baron of Offaly, all in the Peerage of Ireland; Viscount Leinster of Taplow, co. Bucks, in the Peerage of Great Britain; and Baron Kildare of Kildare in the Peerage of the United Kingdom; Premier Duke, Marquess, and Earl of Ireland; born 1st March 1887.

{621}

The following are the heraldic particulars of the shields which would occur were this proof of "Seize-Quartiers" emblazoned in the ordinary form adopted for such a display. The arms are numbered across from left to right in rows of 16, 8, 4, 2, and 1.

1. _Duke's Coronet_ (Ribbon of St. Patrick): Argent, a saltire gules (Fitz Gerald).

2. _Lozenge_: Argent, a chief azure, over all a lion rampant gules, ducally crowned or (St. George).