[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 350.--Bishop Grandison.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 351.--Secretum of Bishop le Despencer.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 352.--Sir Fulk Fitz Warin.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 353.--Thomas le Scrope.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 354.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 355.]

At an early period, Cadency was marked by _adding a single small charge_ to the blazon of a Shield, or by charging some secondary device or figure upon any accessory of a Shield of arms. Such a Mark of Cadency as this, obtained from some allied Shield, and charged upon an ordinary or princ.i.p.al bearing, or occupying a conspicuous position in the general composition, was in high favour with the Heralds of both the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. From the early examples, which exist in great numbers and in as great variety, it will be sufficient for me to adduce only a few specimens--a single example, indeed, ill.u.s.trates the system.

The Shield of _Ufford_, in the Seal of MATILDA of LANCASTER, which I have already described (No. 320), is thus differenced with a single fleur de lys in the first quarter. Precisely in the same manner Sir FULK FITZ WARIN differences the Shield of the head of his house, No. 17, by charging a _mullet sable_ upon the first quarter, as in No. 352. THOMAS LE SCROPE, on the other hand, for Cadency marks the golden bend upon his azure Shield, No. 111, with an _annulet sable_, as in No. 353. Two members of the family of Beauchamp charge their golden fesse (see Nos.

346-349), the one with a _crescent sable_, and the other with a _pierced mullet_ of the same tincture: Nos. 354, 355. In like manner, in addition to various labels, the NEVILLES charge no less than eight different small figures upon their silver saltire, No. 121, to distinguish different members and branches of their powerful race: I give one of these Shields in No. 356, which was borne by GEORGE NEVILLE, Lord LATIMER, from the monument to Earl RICHARD DE BEAUCHAMP at Warwick--_Gu., on a saltire arg. a gimmel-ring az._: another differenced shield of Neville, No. 357, has _a cinquefoil_ charged on the saltire: a third example from this group I have already given, No. 122, differenced with _a rose_: this shield, No. 122, is now borne by the Earl of ABERGAVENNY. Once more: Sir WILLIAM DE BREWYS (E. 2) bears--_Az., crusilee and a lion rampt. or_, No. 358, which coat another Sir WILLIAM DE BREWYS differences, to distinguish himself from his kinsman, while at the same time declaring their near relationship, by simply charging a _red fleur de lys_ upon his lion's shoulder.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 356.--Lord Latimer.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 357.--Neville.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 358.--Sir William de Brewys.]

Differences of Illegitimacy, which rightly and indeed necessarily are included under the general head of "Cadency," do not appear at any time to have a.s.sumed a definite or decided character, and yet they bring before the student of Heraldry much curious matter for inquiry and investigation. Early in the true heraldic era illegitimate sons are found to have differenced their paternal arms, as other sons lawfully born might have done: and it does not appear that any peculiar methods of differencing were adopted, palpably for the purpose of denoting illegitimacy of birth, before the fourteenth century had drawn near to its close. And even then, if any express heraldic rule on this point ever was framed, which is very doubtful, it certainly was never observed with any care or regularity.

The earliest known example of the arms of a man of illegitimate birth is the fine Shield of WILLIAM LONGESPeE, Earl of SALISBURY, son of HENRY II. and FAIR ROSAMOND, No. 197. This Shield is supposed to have been a.s.sumed and borne by the Earl on his marriage with the daughter and heiress of D'EVREUX, when in right of his wife he succeeded to the Earldom of Salisbury: but this theory does not rest upon any solid foundation, since it would be very difficult to show that the Shield with the six lioncels was certainly borne, on his armorial ensign, by the father-in-law of Earl William. Also, if a Shield charged with an escarbuncle and many lioncels, which has been a.s.signed to GEOFFREY Count of ANJOU, was really borne by the Founder of the House of PLANTAGENET, Earl WILLIAM LONGESPeE may have derived his own Shield from his paternal grandfather. Upon his Counterseal the Earl displays his own "long sword"

as his proper device. In like manner, certain other personages, also illegitimate, appear to have borne arms which were either expressly a.s.signed to themselves by the Sovereign, or such as they a.s.sumed in right of their mothers or wives. In all such cases as these, the Arms were not the paternal coat in any way differenced, but what now would be designated "fresh grants." Towards the beginning of the fifteenth century, however, a peculiar kind of Differencing for Illegitimacy gradually prevailed throughout Europe: thus, illegitimate children either altered the position of the charges in their paternal Shield; or they marshalled the entire paternal arms upon a bend or a fesse; or they composed for themselves a fresh Shield, either using their father's badges and the actual charges of his Shield, or adopting devices evidently derived from the paternal bearings; or they bore the paternal Shield differenced in a peculiarly conspicuous manner with certain marks by which they might be readily and certainly distinguished.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 359.--Henry, Earl of Worcester.]

When the composition of the paternal Shield would admit of such an arrangement, the field not being argent, an illegitimate son sometimes bore his father's arms marshalled fesse-wise, so as to leave both the chief and the base of his Shield plain white. HENRY, Earl of WORCESTER, whose father was an illegitimate son of HENRY BEAUFORT, third Duke of SOMERSET, bore the arms of Beaufort couped in this manner in chief and in base, as if they were charged upon a very broad fesse on the field: No. 359.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 360.--Beaufort before 1397.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 361.--Beaufort after 1397.]

JOHN DE BEAUFORT (great-grandfather of HENRY, Earl of WORCESTER), eldest illegitimate son of Prince JOHN of GHENT, _before_ the Act for his legitimation was pa.s.sed in the year 1397, bore his father's hereditary arms of _Lancaster_--_England with a label of France_, No. 249--_on a broad bend_, the field being _per pale arg. and az._, the Lancastrian livery colours: No. 360. After their legitimation act had become a law, this same JOHN DE BEAUFORT, with his brothers, sons, and grandsons, bore the Royal quartered shield of France and England, No. 361, differenced, not with labels, but with _a bordure componee arg. and az._ (the Lancastrian colours): the different members of the Beaufort family slightly varied the bordure, but by the head of their house it was borne as in No. 361. It will be seen that this is the coat that HENRY, Earl of WORCESTER (himself the legitimate son of an illegitimate son), bore fesse-wise, as in No. 359. The father of this Earl HENRY, CHARLES SOMERSET, Earl of WORCESTER (illegitimate son of the third Duke of SOMERSET), differenced _Beaufort_, No. 361, with a _silver bendlet sinister_, as in No. 362, the bendlet covering the quarterings, but being included within the bordure.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 362.--Charles, Earl of Worcester.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 363.--Sir Roger de Clarendon.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 364.--Radolphus de Arundel.]

Since the fifteenth century, in English Heraldry, a narrow bendlet or baton sinister, couped at its extremities, either plain or charged, has usually been the mark employed as difference by the illegitimate descendants of the Royal Family. It was borne by ARTHUR PLANTAGENET, Viscount LISLE, son of EDWARD IV.: by HENRY FITZ ROY, Duke of RICHMOND, son of HENRY VIII., and, variously differenced, by illegitimate descendants of CHARLES II.--that is, it is borne at the present day, _argent_, by the Duke of BUCCLEUCH; _ermine_, by the Duke of CLEVELAND; _componee arg. and az._, by the Duke of GRAFTON; and, _gules charged with three white roses_, by the Duke of ST. ALBANS.

Sir ROGER DE CLARENDON, illegitimate son of the BLACK PRINCE, bore _on a sable bend the three Ostrich Feathers_ of his ill.u.s.trious father's "_Shield of Peace_," the field of his Shield being golden, as in No.

363. Here the "Difference for Illegitimacy" is very emphatically marked in a singularly felicitous and beautiful Shield.

The paternal arms of illegitimate children have also sometimes been carried by them charged on a _canton_, either dexter or sinister, the rest of the Shield being left blank, or perhaps in some cases displaying the maternal arms; of this usage I am not able to give any good example, in English Heraldry, of certain authority: one other variety of these singular Shields, however, I must add to my small group of examples, which was first noticed by Mr. MONTAGU ("Guide to the Study of Heraldry," p. 44). This is the Shield, No. 364, of RADOLPHUS DE ARUNDEL; and it bears the quartered arms of the Earls of ARUNDEL--_Fitz Alan_ and _Warrenne_ (_gu. a lion rampt. or_, and No. 68), "_flanched_,"--that is, blazoned only upon the flanches (see No. 141) of the Shield, the central area being blank.

For a lengthy period the use of the _bend_, _bendlet_, and _baton sinister_ was usual for the purpose of denoting illegitimacy, but this has now given way to the use, in England, of a _bordure wavy_; in Scotland, of a _bordure compony_; whilst in Ireland both these _bordures_ are used, more usually, however, the _bordure wavy_ being employed. By a curious divergence the _bordure wavy_ is not a mark of illegitimacy in Scotland, but a mark of perfectly legitimate cadency.

The use of the _bendlet sinister_ for the debruising of crests still exists in England and Ireland, but crests are not usually differenced for any reason in Scotland.

In treating of this subject, some writers have maintained that the _bordure componee_ is, in its heraldic nature, the most decided and unquestionable Difference for Illegitimacy: and this opinion these writers have derived from the singularly contradictory fact, that the BEAUFORTS differenced with a bordure componee when they became legally _legitimate_. A bordure componee _may_, indeed, be used with such an intention, as it is used by the Duke of RICHMOND, who bears the arms of CHARLES II. within a _bordure componee arg. and gu., charged with eight roses of the last_; but by the BEAUFORTS it was used with an intention exactly the reverse of this. The bordure, however, whatever its aspect or modification of treatment, remains still, as it was of old, an honourable Difference, until some abatement of honour has been a.s.sociated with its presence under special circ.u.mstances. But the stereotyped use of the _bordure wavy_ in England with a set meaning, gives to the wavy variety a lack of desirability. Marks of illegitimacy are intended to remain upon a shield for all time, although in a few historic cases their use has been discarded. And precisely the same words may be applied to any other charge that has been employed, or may be required to mark Cadency.

Marks of Cadency, as they are borne on Shields of Arms, may also be charged on Badges, Crests, and Supporters. As a matter of course, they appear on Armorial Banners and Standards under the same conditions that they are blazoned upon Shields and Surcoats. Such examples as may be necessary to ill.u.s.trate heraldic usage in these cases, I propose to describe in the following Chapters.

It cannot be necessary for me to adduce any arguments in order to impress upon Students of Heraldry the importance of investigating early Cadency, or to a.s.sure them that a special interest is inseparable from this inquiry: I may suggest, however, that it is most desirable that Students should arrange groups of allied Shields, and should carefully blazon them with their various "Marks of Cadency," being careful also to record their authorities for every example.

MODERN CADENCY is marked by the Label and by single small Charges, which take precedence in the following order:--

1. The _Label_, No. 271.

2. The _Crescent_, No. 166, A.

3. The _Mullet_, No. 278.

4. The _Martlet_, No. 161.

5. The _Annulet_, No. 154.

6. The _Fleur de lys_, No. 246.

7. The _Rose_, No. 298.

8. The _Cross Moline_, No. 99.

9. The _Octofoil_, or _Double Quatrefoil_.

When they are adopted, Marks of Cadency now are generally placed upon the Honour Point of the Shield, or in some other conspicuous position: one of these Marks also may be charged upon another, if desired,--as a Martlet may be charged upon a Crescent to denote the fourth son of a second son; and so in other cases.

[Ill.u.s.tration: No. 365.--Seal of William Fraser: appended to Homage Deed, A.D. 1295, preserved in H.M. Record Office.]

The Seal of WILLIAM FRASER, No. 365, from Mr. Laing's Collection, exemplifies in a singular and interesting manner the early use of a differenced Label. Here the Label appears, without any Shield, borne as if it were a Badge: and it is charged, on each of its three points, with two devices that have the appearance of mullets of six points, but which really may be _fraises_--strawberry-leaves, the rebus-device of Fraser.

(See pp. 182-185.)

CHAPTER XIII

DIFFERENCING

_Differencing to denote Feudal Alliance or Dependency: Differencing without any Alliance-- Augmentation-- Abatement._

"Differencing, which comprises in truth the growth and ramification of Coat-Armour, and the whole system of its early development, has been strangely lost sight of in the numerous treatises on Armory that have satisfied recent generations of Englishmen."

--HERALD AND GENEALOGIST, II. 32.

DIFFERENCING, using the term here as distinct from, or perhaps as not identical with, the subject of CADENCY, includes not only the treatment of Coats of Arms and other armorial insignia, that denote and are based upon _Feudal Alliance_ or _Dependency_, but without blood-relationship; but also implies a comprehensive system of distinguishing similar Arms, when they are borne by individuals or families between whom no kind of alliance is known to have existed. It is evident, on the one hand, that a feudal influence would naturally lead to some degree of a.s.similation to the Coat-Armour of the feudal Chief, in the Arms of all allies and dependants: and, on the other hand, it will readily be understood that, even in the early days of its career, Heraldry would see the necessity for providing for the constantly increasing demands upon its resources; and, consequently, that it would organise a system which would enable the same Ordinaries and the same princ.i.p.al Charges to appear in distinct Shields, without either confusion or misapprehension.

It is highly probable, and indeed it may be a.s.sumed to be certain, that what I have called a "feudal influence," in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in no slight degree affected the general composition of Coats of Arms. In very many instances the working of this influence is still palpable; and it is always interesting to the student of Heraldry, as it must always be eminently useful to the student of History, to detect its presence and to explore its method of action.

Like Cadency, feudal Differencing is expressed by various means, all of them indicating, in a greater or a less degree, the motive which suggested their adoption. I proceed at once to examples, which ill.u.s.trate and explain the system so clearly and so fully, that prolonged introductory remarks are altogether superfluous.

Upon his Seal, RANULPH DE BLONDEVILLE, Earl of CHESTER (died in 1232) bears three garbs or wheat-sheaves; and Rolls of Arms of the time of HENRY III. blazon the Shield of the Earl of CHESTER as--_Az., three garbs or_, No. 366. This Shield has been a.s.signed to the Earls of CHESTER to this day: and, in token of feudal alliance, from the middle of the thirteenth century, "one or more garbs," in the words of Mr.

PLANCHe, "are seen in the majority of Coats belonging to the n.o.bility and gentry of the County Palatine of Chester." Thus, since the year 1390, the arms of GROSVENOR have been--_Az., a garb or_.