The Handbook to English Heraldry

CHAPTER XI
MARSHALLING

Aggroupment— Combination— Quartering— Dimidiation— Impalement— Escutcheon of Pretence— Marshalling the Arms of Widowers, Widows, and others; Official Arms; and, the Accessories of Shields.

“Marshalling is a conjoining of diverse Coats in one Shield.” —Guillim.

Upon this concise definition, Guillim, in another part of his work, adds the following comment:—“Marshalling is an orderly disposing of sundry Coat Armours pertaining to distinct Families, and their contingent ornaments, with their parts and appurtenances, in their proper places.” Hence it is apparent that this term, “Marshalling,” implies—

The association of “Arms” with Names, Dignities, and Estates would necessarily require, at an early period in the history of Heraldry, the establishment of some regular and recognised system for the combination and aggroupment of various distinct coats and insignia, whenever a single individual became the representative of more than one family, or was the hereditary possessor of several dignities and properties.

Again: it would be equally necessary that this system should extend to the becoming heraldic declaration and record of Alliances of every kind, including (a matter of no little importance in the Middle Ages) feudal dependence.

In another, and a secondary sense, this same term, Marshalling, is used by Heralds to denote the general arrangement and disposition of heraldic charges and insignia in blazon upon the field of a Shield.

In its simplest form, Marshalling is effected by Aggroupment without Combination—by placing two or more Shields of arms, that is, in such positions as to form a connected group of distinct Shields, either with or without various accessories. Seals afford excellent examples of Marshalling of this order. These Seals may be classified in two groups,—one, in which an effigy appears; and a second, in which the composition does not include any effigy. Here I may observe that the same armorial blazonry that was displayed upon their military surcoats by Princes, Nobles, and Knights, was adopted by Ecclesiastics for the decoration of their official vestments, and also (towards the close of the thirteenth century) by Ladies of rank, as an appropriate style of ornamentation for their own costume: and many examples of the effigies of Ladies, with a few of Ecclesiatics, adorned in this manner with heraldic insignia, exist in Seals and in Monumental Memorials. In Beverley Minster there is a noble effigy of a priest, a member of the great family of Percy (about A.D. 1330), the embroideries of whose vestments are elaborately enriched with numerous allied shields of arms. Upon his episcopal seal, Lewis Beaumont, Bishop of Durham from 1317 to 1333, has his effigy standing between two Shields of Arms (to the dexter, England; to the sinister, a cross potent between four groups of small crosses patées, three crosses in each group), while his chasuble is semée de lys and also charged with a lion rampant—the arms of the house of Beaumont.

No. 316.— Seal of Margaret, Queen of Edward I.

The obverse of the Seal of Margaret, daughter of Philip the Hardy, King of France, the second Queen of our Edward I., illustrates this usage in the instance of ladies: No. 316. Upon her tunic the Queen has emblazoned the three lions of her royal husband; on her right side is a shield of France, the arms of her royal father; and on the left side a corresponding shield is charged with a lion rampant. I have already shown the reverse of this fine Seal (No. 251), which in the original is one inch more in depth than it appears in these woodcuts.5 Other characteristic examples are the Seals of Agnes de Percy, whose effigy, having the arms of Louvaine upon the tunic, holds two armorial shields, one in each hand: and of Margaret, Countess of Lincoln and Pembroke (about 1241), who blazons the old arms of De Laci—quarterly or and gu., a bend sa., over all a label vert—upon the tunic of her effigy, and has the same arms on a Shield to the dexter, while another Shield to the sinister is charged with the lion rampant, borne by the De Lacies as Earls of Lincoln. The effigies of illustrious Ladies, which appear on Seals with allied Shields of arms, are not always represented in heraldic costume: good examples are the Seals of Isabelle of France, Queen of Edward II., and of Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I., who was Countess, first of Holland, and afterwards of Hereford: both are engraved in Sandford’s “Genealogical History of England,” page 121.

The Seal of Margaret Bruce, of Skelton, Lady de Ros, attached to a deed, dated 1820, has the effigy of the noble lady, wearing her ermine mantle, and supporting two Shields of arms—the Shield of De Ros, gu., three water-bougets arg., to the dexter, and a Shield of Bruce, a lion rampant: No. 317. I am indebted, for the use of the excellent woodcut of this very interesting seal, to Mr. Laing of Edinburgh, the talented author of the two noble volumes on the Early Seals of Scotland, which occupy a foremost position amongst the most valuable as well as the most beautiful heraldic works that have ever been published in Great Britain. (See page 11.) In the Monumental Brasses and also in the Sculptured Monumental Effigies of Ladies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, heraldic costume is frequently represented, and the figures are constantly associated with groups of Shields of arms. As most characteristic examples I may specify the effigy of a Lady, about A.D. 1325, at Selby in Yorkshire; and the Brass in Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1399, to Alianore de Bohun, Duchess of Gloucester.

No. 318.— Seal of Joan, Countess of Surrey.

The aggroupment of various armorial ensigns upon a Seal, without the presence of any effigy, is exemplified in the characteristic Seal of Joan, daughter of Henry Count de Barre, and of Alianore, daughter of Edward I., the widow of John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey, A.D. 1347. In this remarkable composition, No. 318, the arms, blazoned on lozenges, are, in the centre, Warrenne; in chief and base, England; and to the dexter and sinister, De Barre (No. 162): also, at the four angles of the group, the lion and castle of Leon and Castile, in direct allusion to the descent of the Countess from Alianore, first Queen of Edward I. In the original, this elaborate composition is only one and a half inches in diameter. Still smaller, measuring no more than one and a quarter inches in diameter, and yet no less rich in either its Heraldry or its Gothic traceries, is the beautiful little Counter-seal of Mary de Saint Paul, wife of Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, which is faithfully shown on an enlarged scale, in order to render the details more effectively, in No. 319. This illustrious lady, who founded Pembroke College, Cambridge, A.D. 1373, was the daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Count of St. Paul, by his wife Mary, daughter of John de Dreux, Duke of Brittany, and of Beatrice, sister of Edward I. On her Seal, accordingly, the Countess of Brittany marshals, in the centre, the arms of her husband (De Valence: No. 86), and those of her father (De Chastillon—gu., three pallets vair, on a chief or a label of three points az.), united upon a single shield by “Dimidiation”—a process presently to be described: to the dexter, the arms of her Royal relatives of England are blazoned in a circular compartment: to the sinister, in a similar compartment, are the fleurs de lys of France Ancient, No. 247, at that time so closely allied with the English lions: and, finally, in a third roundle, in the base of the composition, are the arms of De Dreux (chequée or and az., within a bordure gu.;6 over all a canton of Brittany, No. 15, borne by the maternal grandfather of the Countess: the legend is, + S . MARIE . DE . SEYN . POVL . COMITISSE . PEMPROCHIE. The original impression of this Seal, from which the woodcut, No. 319, was drawn, is appended to a charter, dated 1347, which is preserved amongst the muniments of Pembroke College. A very good example of the aggroupment of Shields upon a Seal, under conditions differing from those that now have been illustrated, I have already given in No. 204. Another beautiful and most interesting example, now unfortunately partially mutilated, is the Seal of Matilda of Lancaster, the wife, first, of William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (and by him mother of Elizabeth, the wife of Prince Lionel of Clarence), and, secondly, of Sir Ralph de Ufford. This seal, of circular form, No. 320, displays to the dexter a shield of De Burgh—or, a cross gu.; to the sinister, a shield of Ufford—or, a cross engrailed sa., in the first quarter a fleur de lys, for difference: in base there is a lozenge of De Chaworth (the mother of the Countess was Matilda de Chaworth)—barrulée arg. and gu., an orle of martlets sa.; and in chief there remains part of another lozenge of Lancaster, to complete this remarkable heraldic group. Of the legend there remains only . . ILLV MATILD’ . . . . SE . . . The introduction of Badges, with a Shield or Shields of arms, in the composition of a Seal, is another variety of this same system of Marshalling. No. 321, the Seal of Oliver de Bohun, exemplifies this usage, having the white swan Badge of the noble house of Bohun thrice repeated about the Shield. See No. 114. Also see, in the frontispiece, the Seal of Earl Richard de Beauchamp, No. 449, which is described in Section II. of Chapter XXII.

No. 319.— Seal of Mary, Countess of Pembroke.	No. 320.— Seal of Matilda of Lancaster.

Marshalling by Aggroupment was practised under another form by placing Shields of arms in the different panels of the same architectural monument.

Marshalling by Combination is effected by actually forming, for the blazonry of a single Shield, a composition which includes the principal charges of two or more allied Shields. The composition of the Shield borne by the house of De Dreux, to which I have just referred in describing the Seal of the Countess of Pembroke, No. 319, is a most striking example of this variety of Marshalling: and this Shield was borne by John de Dreux, created Earl of Richmond by his uncle King Edward I., who lived and died in England, as it is represented in No. 322—the field, chequée or and azure, being for De Dreux; the canton ermine for Brittany; and the bordure, gules charged with golden lions of England, representing the royal Shield of England, and showing the close connection existing between the Earl of Richmond and his Sovereign. The shield of Prince John of Eltham (No. 24), England within a bordure of France, is another characteristic example of this Marshalling by Combination.

No. 321.— Seal of Oliver de Bohun.	No. 322.— Shield of Earl John de Dreux.

For many reasons, except in particular instances, these methods of Marshalling were not considered to be altogether satisfactory. Accordingly, a fresh arrangement was devised which would preserve intact the original integrity of each coat of arms, would imply a definite systematic method of arrangement, and would admit into a single composition any required number of distinct coats. This Marshalling by Quartering, naturally suggested by such simple bearings as Nos. 16 and 17, consists in dividing the Shield, as in No. 30, into four parts, and placing in each of these divisions or quarters one of the coats to be marshalled on a single Shield. If two coats only are thus to be “quartered,” the most important of the two occupies the first quarter, and is repeated in the fourth; and, the other coat is placed in the second quarter, and repeated in the third. The earliest example known in England is the quartered Shield of Castile and Leon—quarterly: first and fourth, gules, a castle triple-towered or; second and third, argent, a lion rampant gu., No. 323. This shield is sculptured upon the monument in Westminster Abbey to Alianore, daughter of Ferdinand III., King of Castile and Leon, and Queen of Edward I.: the date is 1290. This form of Marshalling began gradually to be adopted during the first half of the fourteenth century, and in the second half of that century it became generally adopted. Other examples of quartered shields I have already given in Nos. 252 and 253.

No. 323.— Shield of Castile and Leon.	No. 324.— Shield of Henry, Earl of Northumberland.

Should there be three Coats to be quartered, they would severally occupy the first, second, and third quarters of the Shield, in due order, and the first quarter would be repeated in the fourth. In quartering four coats, no repetition would be necessary. If more than four coats would require to be quartered, the Shield would be divided into whatever number of sections might be necessary, as in No. 36, and the required arrangement would be made; should any repetition be necessary, the first quarter is to be repeated in the fourth. This process, whatever the number of the coats thus marshalled (and their number sometimes is very great), is always entitled “quartering”; and each of these divisions of a Shield, for the purpose of Marshalling, is distinguished as a “Quarter.” Occasionally a quartered coat would have to be marshalled with others. In the “grand quartering” which then takes place, the quartered coat is treated precisely as any other member of the group. See No. 37. For example, the Shield, No. 324 (R. 2), of Henry, first Earl of Northumberland, is—I. and IV. Grand Quarters,—first and fourth, or, a lion rampt. az., for Louvaine, or Percy modern: second and third, gu., three lucies haurient arg. (No. 164) for Lucy: II. and III. Grand Quarters,—az., five fusils conjoined in fesse or, for Percy ancient.

When a Shield to be quartered has a very numerous array of Quarterings, Grand Quartering is seldom adopted; but, in its stead, the new quarterings are marshalled in their proper succession, with the original quarterings of the Shield.

In this Marshalling the first quarter is occupied by the most important quartering, which is determined (without any fixed rule) by the original grant or licence: the other quarterings follow, in the order in which they may have been “brought in” to the composition.

No. 325.— Shield of Mayor of Winchelsea.	No. 326.— De Valence, dimidiating Claremont Nesle.

To denote and record Alliance by Marriage, two distinct Coats were first marshalled upon a single Shield by Dimidiation. This process is accomplished in the following manner. The Shield to be charged with the two Coats in union is divided per pale, as in No. 28: on the dexter half the corresponding half, or generally somewhat more than that half, of the arms of the husband is marshalled: then, in like manner, the sinister half is charged with the corresponding portion of the arms of the wife. In the Shield, No. 250, from another Seal of Queen Margaret, England dimidiates France ancient, Nos. 187 and 247. This Dimidiation in most cases produces a singular effect; as in No. 325, a Shield from the Seal of the Mayor of Winchelsea, one of the famous Sussex Cinque Ports, which bears England dimidiating azure, three hulls of ships, in pale, or: here the dimidiated lions and ships appear to unite for the purpose of forming the most extravagant of compound monsters. The Seal of the Borough of Great Yarmouth substitutes three herrings, in allusion to the staple fishery of the port, for the ships, and dimidiates them with the national lions. In the central Shield of the Seal, No. 319, I have shown De Valence dimidiating De Chastillon. In No. 326, from the monument of William de Valence, De Valence appears dimidiating the French Coat of Claremont Nesle—gu., semée of trefoils, two barbels haurient addorsed or: the Dimidiation here cuts off and removes one-half of the De Valence martlets and also one of the two barbels of Claremont.

The characteristic features of one or of both of the united Coats, as I have just shown, being commonly rendered indistinct and uncertain by Dimidiation, that form of marshalling was generally superseded by Impalement in the course of the third quarter of the fourteenth century. This process, at once simple and effectual, marshals the whole of the husband’s arms on the dexter half of a Shield divided per pale, as No. 28; and the whole of the arms of the wife on the sinister half of it. Such an impaled Shield is borne by a husband and wife during their conjoint lives; and should the wife become a widow, by her the impaled arms are borne during her widowhood charged upon a lozenge. The dexter half only—the husband’s arms—of an impaled Shield is hereditary. Fine examples of Shields that are both impaled and quartered, are preserved in the monuments of Edward III. and his Queen Philippa, in the Brass to Alianore de Bohun, and in the monument to Margaret Beaufort, all in Westminster Abbey. Other fine examples occur on the monument of Earl Richard Beauchamp, at Warwick. No. 327, from the Brass to Thomas, Lord Camoys, K.G., and his wife, Elizabeth Mortimer (the widow of Henry Hotspur), at Trotton, in Sussex, A.D. 1410, marshals Camoys—arg., on a chief gu. three plates, impaling Mortimer, No. 131. Again, at Warwick, the Brass to Earl Thomas de Beauchamp and his Countess, Margaret Ferrers of Groby, A.D. 1406, has a Shield of Beauchamp—gu., a fesse between six crosslets or, impaling Ferrers—gu., seven mascles, three three and one, or.

No. 328.— D’Aubigny, impaling Scotland.

It is to be observed that Bordures and Tressures, which are not affected by Quartering, are dimidiated by Impalement,—that is, that side of both a Bordure and a Tressure which adjoins the line of Impalement is generally removed: thus, one of the small Shields sculptured upon the canopy of the monument of Queen Mary Stuart, at Westminster, is charged with D’Aubigny impaling Scotland,—that is, az., three fleurs de lys or, within a bordure gu. charged with eight buckles gold, impaling No. 138. This Shield, represented in No. 328, has both the bordure on its dexter half, and the tressure on its sinister half, dimidiated by the impalement. There are other excellent examples of this partial dimidiating in the monuments of Margaret Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, in the same chapel of Westminster Abbey.

No. 329.— Shield of Earl Richard Beauchamp.

The husband of an Heiress or a Co-heiress, instead of impaling the arms of his wife, marshals them upon his Shield charged as an Escutcheon of Pretence. The son of an heiress, as heir to his maternal grandfather through his mother, as well as to his own father, quarters on his Shield, and transmits to his descendants, the arms of both his parents, his father’s arms generally being in the first quarter. The Shield of Richard Beauchamp, K.G., Earl of Warwick (died in 1439), is a good example of the use of an Escutcheon of Pretence; it is represented in No. 329, drawn from the garter-plate of the Earl, in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor. The Earl himself, as his hereditary coat, quarters Beauchamp with Newburgh—chequée or and az., a chevron erm.: upon this, for his Countess, Isabelle, daughter and heiress of Thomas le Despencer, Earl of Gloucester, he marshals an Escutcheon of Pretence charged with De Clare, No. 124, quartering Le Despencer—quarterly arg. and gu., in the second and third quarters a frette or, over all a bend sa. In the monument of this great Earl, at Warwick, upon the Escutcheon of Pretence the arms of Bohun are quartered with those of Clare and Despencer.

No. 330.

A few very simple diagrams will clearly elucidate the principle of Marshalling the arms of Husband and Wife. Suppose B (Baron) to represent the Husband, and F (Femme) the Wife: then, No. 330 B may represent the arms of the Husband, and No. 330 F the arms of the Wife. If F be not an heiress, the arms of B and F, as husband and wife, are borne impaled, as in No. 330 B F; and their son bears No. 330 B only. If F be an heiress, the arms of B and F, as husband and wife, are borne as in No. 331—the arms of the wife on an Escutcheon of Pretence; and, in this case, the son of B and F quarters the arms of both his parents, as No. 332. Now, suppose this son, whose arms are No. 332, to marry a lady, not an heiress, whose arms are No. 330 F F, he would simply impale the arms of his wife, as in No. 333, and his son would bear No. 332 only, as his father bore that quartered shield before his marriage. But if the wife of the bearer of No. 332 were to be an heiress, he would charge the arms of his wife in pretence upon his own hereditary paternal Shield, as in No. 334; and his son, by this heiress, as before, would quarter the arms of both his parents, as in No. 335. It is obvious that Marshalling on this system (of which I here give the general outline) admits of a widely-extended application. Younger sons in all cases place over all the quarterings of their Shield their own distinctive Mark of Cadency, until they inherit some different quartering from those to which the head of their house is entitled, and the quartering itself then forms sufficient difference.

No. 331.	No. 332.

No. 333.	No. 334.	No. 335.

A Widower who marries again places the arms of both his wives upon any permanent record, but for ordinary purposes of use, e.g. on a seal or carriage, bears only the arms of his living wife.

An Unmarried Lady bears her paternal arms on a lozenge, without any Helmet, Crest, or Motto.

A Widow bears on a lozenge the arms borne by her husband and herself. Should she marry again, a Widow ceases to bear the arms of her former husband.

A Peeress in her own right, if married to a Peer, has both her own arms and those of her husband fully blazoned, and the lozenge and the Shield, with all their accessories, are marshalled to form a single united group, the achievement of the husband having precedence to the dexter. If married to a Commoner, a Peeress in her own right bears her own arms on a lozenge as before, and her husband marshals her arms ensigned with her coronet in pretence on his Shield: and this lozenge and Shield are grouped together, the lozenge yielding precedence.

Prelates bear the arms of their see impaling their own paternal and hereditary arms, the insignia of the see occupying the dexter half of the Shield, this Shield being ensigned with a mitre only. A married Prelate bears also a second Shield, placed to the sinister of the other, on which are marshalled, in accordance with ordinary usage, his own personal arms with those of his wife. The mitre then is placed over the conjoined shields.

The Kings of Arms, in like manner, bear two Shields, disposed to form a single group: on the dexter Shield their official arms impale their personal; and on the sinister Shield their personal arms are marshalled with the arms of their wives.

Again, the same usage obtains in marshalling the arms of Knights of Orders of Knighthood who, when married, bear two Shields grouped together. On the dexter Shield are blazoned the arms of the Knight himself alone; and around this Shield are displayed the insignia of his Order, or Orders, of Knighthood: and on the sinister Shield the arms of the Knight and of his wife are marshalled, but without the knightly insignia. This second Shield is generally environed with decorative foliage. This usage, prevalent in England, is not accepted or adopted by foreign Heralds: nor does it appear to be required by true heraldic principle, or to be strictly in accordance with it. The wife of a Knight shares his knightly title, and takes precedence from her husband’s knightly rank; and a knight, with perfect heraldic consistency, might marshal his own knightly insignia about the Shield which is charged with his own arms and those of his wife, whether united by impalement, or when the latter are borne in pretence: and thus a single Shield would be borne, and there would cease to exist any motive for endeavouring to impart to a second Shield some general resemblance to its companion by wreaths or other unmeaning accessories. There are ancient precedents for the use of a single shield.

Official Arms are not hereditary.

Royal Personages, when married, bear their own arms on a separate Shield; and a second Shield bears the arms of the husband and wife conjoined.

The circumstances of every case must exercise a considerable influence in determining the Marshalling of the Accessories of any Shield, Lozenge, or Group. As a general rule, however, the Helm always rests on the chief of the Shield: Commoners, Knights, Baronets, and Peers place their Crest upon the Helm: Peers and Princes place their Helm upon the Coronet, and their Crest is placed upon the Helmet. The Sovereign places the Crest upon the Royal Crown, which is a part of the Royal Crest, and it is unusual to duplicate the Crown by repeating it below the Helmet. The Mantling is displayed from the back of the Helm: it is most effective when simple in its form and adjustment, and when it droops behind the Shield. The Motto is usually placed below the Shield; but if it has special reference to the Crest, above the Crest. A Scottish motto always goes over the Crest. Supporters are usually placed erect, as if in the act of really supporting the Shield: they ought to stand either on an appropriate ground, or on a Gothic basement to the entire Achievement. Badges, with all Official and Knightly Insignia, and all other Honourable Insignia of every kind, are rightly marshalled in an Achievement of Arms.

CHAPTER XII
CADENCY

Marks of Cadency are temporary or permanent— The Label— The Bordure— The Bendlet, Barrulet, and Canton— Change of Tincture— Secondary Charges— Single Small Charges— Differences of Illegitimacy— Cadency of Crests, Badges, &c.— Modern Cadency.

“Merke ye wele theys questionys here, now folowying!” —Boke of St. Albans, A.D. 1486.

Amongst his comrades in arms, or in the midst of a hostile array, the last object that a mediæval Knight would expect or desire to observe, on the morning of a battle or a joust, would be an exact counterpart of himself. Occasions, indeed, might sometimes arise, when it might be highly desirable that five or six counterfeit “Richmonds” should accompany one real one to “the field”; or, when a “wild boar of Ardennes” might prefer to encounter the hunters, having about him the choice of his own “boar’s brood,” garnished at all points exactly after his own fashion. These, however, are rare and strictly exceptional cases. And the Knight, to whom distinction was as the breath of his nostrils, as he closed his vizor trusted confidently to his heraldic insignia to distinguish him, while, in the fore-front of the fray, with sword and lance and axe he would strive manfully to distinguish himself. This implies that Heraldry, besides assigning to different families their own distinct insignia, should possess the faculty of distinguishing the several members, and also the various branches of the same family, the one from the other. A faculty such as this Heraldry does possess, in its marks of Cadency.

In “marking Cadency”—that is, in distinguishing the armorial insignia of kinsmen, who are members of the very same family, or of some one of its various branches, it is a necessary condition of every system of “Differencing” that, while in itself clear and definite and significant, it should be secondary to the leading characteristics of the original Coat of Arms which denotes the senior branch of the Family, and also declares from what fountain-head all the kinsmen of all the branches have derived their common descent.

Various methods for thus marking Cadency were adopted, and accepted as satisfactory, in the early days of Heraldry. Of these I now shall describe and illustrate such as are most emphatic in themselves, and in their character most decidedly heraldic,—such also as most advantageously may be retained in use in our own Heraldry of the present time. It will be seen that the “Differences” which mark Cadency necessarily resolve themselves into two groups or classes: one, in which the “Difference” is temporary only in its significance and use,—as, when an eldest son, on the death of his father, succeeds to the position in the family which his father had held, he removes his Mark of Cadency as eldest son from his Shield, assumes the unmarked Shield as his father had borne it before him, and transfers to his own son the mark that previously had distinguished his Shield from that of his father. In the other group, the Marks of Cadency are more permanent, and consequently may become integral elements of the heraldic composition in which they appear: thus, the mark of Cadency which distinguishes any particular branch of a family, is borne alike by all the members of that branch, and in that branch it is transmitted from generation to generation.

More than one Mark of Cadency may be introduced into the same Coat of Arms; and, for the purpose of some form of secondary distinction, it is quite correct Heraldry to mark Marks of Cadency—to charge one variety of mark, that is, upon another.

No. 336.— Eldest Sons of Edward I. and II.	No. 337.— Black Prince.

The Label, Nos. 271, 272, is blazoned as a Mark of Cadency in the earliest Rolls of Arms, and it appears discharging this duty in the earliest examples. The Label is generally borne with three points, as in No. 271; frequently with five, as in No. 272; and occasionally with four or with more than five points. It is quite certain that no significance was formerly attached to the number of the points, the object in all cases being to make the Label distinctly visible, and to adjust the points to the general composition of the Shield. Labels are of various tinctures. Edward I., Edward II., and Edward III., each one during the lifetime of his father, bore the Shield of England, No. 187, differenced with an azure label, sometimes of three points, as in No. 336, and sometimes having five points. Edward the Black Prince marked the Royal Shield of Edward III. with a label argent, as in No. 337; and a plain silver label has since been the Mark of Cadency of every succeeding heir-apparent to the English throne. The Label has been used in this manner by personages of all ranks who have borne arms, from the time of Henry III.; and examples abound in all the early Rolls of Arms, in Monuments, and upon Seals.

The Label, borne as a Mark of Cadency, was sometimes, particularly in the cases of junior members of the Royal Family, charged with other figures and devices, as differences of a secondary rank. Or, when it is thus charged, the charges upon a Label may be considered to be elements of the Label itself, in its capacity of a Mark of Cadency. Edmond, the first Earl of Lancaster, as I have already shown, No. 249, differenced his father’s Arms of England with a Label of France, No. 338—an azure label, that is, charged with golden fleurs de lys, to denote his French alliance; and thus by the same process he was Marshalling and Marking Cadency. John of Ghent, Duke of Lancaster, differenced with an ermine Label, No. 339, derived from the ermine shield of Brittany (No. 15): and the Plantagenet Dukes of York charged each point of their silver Label with three torteaux, No. 340, which may be considered to have been derived from the shield of Wake (No. 82). In order to show them on a larger scale, the Labels in Nos. 338-343 are represented without the Shields on which they were charged. All these Shields would be repetitions of the same blazonry of France and England quarterly: Nos. 252 and 253.

No. 338.— Lancaster.	No. 339.— Brittany.	No. 340.— York.

The Label, with various Differences, has generally been the Royal Mark of Cadency; and now differenced silver Labels are borne, to mark Cadency, by every member of our Royal Family.

No. 341.	No. 342.	No. 343.

Like the points of Labels, the Charges blazoned on those points had no fixed or determinate numbers. That both the Labels and their Charges should be distinct and conspicuous, was the special object with which they were blazoned. Accordingly, in different examples of the same Label the number of the repetitions of the Charges sometimes is found to differ. At the same time, in the earliest examples of charged Labels, the repetitions of the Charges, while devoid of any special differencing aim or meaning, may be considered to have been suggested by the sources from which the Charges themselves were derived. For example: the Label of Lancaster, No. 338, of Earl Edmond, derived directly from the Shield of France ancient, No. 247, with its field semée de lys, has three fleurs de lys upon each point, so that this Label has the appearance of being also semée de lys. Had it been derived from the Shield of France modern, No. 248, charged with three fleurs de lys only, a single fleur de lys in all probability would have been blazoned on each of the three points of this same Label. Upon this principle the Label of Prince Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second son of Edward III., which is differenced with cantons gules, has a single canton on each point, as in No. 341, evidently because only a single canton can be blazoned on a Shield. The figures and devices that are charged for secondary difference upon Labels vary widely in their character; but, however difficult it now may be in very many instances to trace these differencing charges to their sources, and so to determine the motive which led to their adoption, there can be no doubt that originally they were chosen and adopted for the express purpose of denoting and recording some alliance or dependency. Some early Labels are of a compound character; that is, they are charged with two distinct groups of devices, which are at once divided and conjoined by impalement. Such a Label was borne by Prince Henry, son of John of Ghent, between the time of his father’s death and his own accession as Henry IV. (Feb. 3 to Sept. 30, 1399): it was a Label of five points per pale of Brittany and Lancaster, No. 342, being his father’s Label impaling that of his mother’s father. The second son of this Prince, Thomas Duke of Clarence, instead of adopting impalement, charged a red canton upon each point of an ermine Label, as in No. 343: while his brother, John Duke of Bedford, bore their father’s Label, No. 342.