The Handbook to English Heraldry

The Bordure, both plain and charged, is a Mark of Cadency borne by Princes and by personages of various ranks. Edmond, youngest son of Edward I., differenced England with a plain silver bordure, as in No. 344: the Hollands, Earls of Kent, did the same: and the same silver bordure also was borne by Thomas, youngest son of Edward III., about the quartered shield of France ancient and England; and about the quartered shield of France modern and England by Humphrey, youngest son of Henry IV. Prince John of Eltham, as I have already shown, and after him the Hollands, Dukes of Exeter, differenced England with a Bordure of France: No. 24. Though not so numerous as Labels, Bordures employed to mark Cadency exist in very many early examples, and a variety of devices appear charged upon them for secondary Difference. See No. 140. In the Royal Heraldry of our own times the Bordure is not used as a Royal Difference; but its use is retained in Scotland for differencing Shields of less exalted rank.

In some few early Examples a Bendlet is charged upon the paternal shield as a mark of Cadency: and a Barrulet is found to have been also used for the same purpose. Thus, Henry, second son of Edmond the first Earl of Lancaster, during the lifetime of his elder brother, differenced England with an azure Bendlet, as in No. 345: and, in the Seal of Henry de Percy, son and heir of Henry third Baron, the lion is debruised, for Difference, by a Barrulet which crosses the Shield in the honour-point. Possibly, this Barrulet may be a Label without points. A Canton, plain, or more frequently charged, and in many examples of ermine, is also added to Shields to mark Cadency, but more frequently nowadays its use denotes absence of blood descent. See Nos. 128, 129, 130.

To mark Cadency by a change of Tinctures was a simple expedient, and such a one as would naturally be practised at an early period. It was effected, first, in the case of the Field: thus (H. 3) the brothers De la Zouche severally bear—Gu., bezantée, and, Az., bezantée; and the brothers Furnival (H. 3) bear—Arg., a bend between six martlets gu., and, Or, a bend between six martlets gu. Secondly, the change is effected in the Charges: thus, two William Bardolfs (H. 3 and E. 2) severally bear—Az., three cinquefoils or, and, Az., three cinquefoils arg. Thirdly, the tinctures are reversed: for example, for two Sir John Harcourts (E. 2)—Gu., two bars or, and, Or, two bars gu. Fourthly, there is a complete change in all the tinctures: and so, while Sir Andrew Loterel (E. 2) bears—Or, a bend between six martlets sa., Sir Geffrey Loterel (E. 2) bears—Az., a bend between six martlets argent. Finally, this system of marking Cadency admits various modifications of the changes already described: thus, in the Arms of Mortimer, No. 131, gules is substituted for azure; and, again, in the same Shield an inescutcheon ermine takes the place of the inescutcheon argent.

Another and a favourite method of marking Cadency, calculated to exercise a great and decided influence in the development of heraldic blazon, is the addition of secondary Charges of small size (not on a Label or a Bordure but) semée over the field of a Shield, or charged upon an Ordinary, or disposed in orle. In a large number of examples, these small charges are found to have been gradually reduced to six or three, in order to admit of their being blazoned on a somewhat larger scale, and consequently made more distinct. Again: while the number and the tinctures of the secondary differencing charges remain the same, in order to carry out the Cadency still farther the secondary charges themselves are varied: and, once more, in other cases the identity of the original secondary charges is retained, but their number is increased or diminished. I must be content to illustrate these various forms of Cadency with a few examples only. First, a group of shields of the Beauchamps:—Beauchamp of Elmely (H. 3)—Gu., a fesse or, No. 346: Beauchamp at Carlaverock—Gu., crusilée and a fesse or, No. 347: Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick—Gu., a fesse between six crosses crosslets or, No. 348: and Beauchamp of Bletshoe—Gu., a fesse between six martlets or, No. 349. Second, a corresponding group of shields of the Berkeleys:—Maurice de Barkele (or Berkeley)—Gu., a chevron arg. (H. 3): and then for other Berkeleys—Gu., a chevron between ten crosses pattées, six and four, arg.; and the same Ordinary, with either ten cinquefoils of silver, or the same number of white roses. Three Corbets bear severally (E. 2)—Or, a raven sa.; Or, two ravens sa.; and, Or, three ravens sa. And, once more, their original Shield—Gu., a chevron or, is differenced by the Cobhams by charging the Ordinary with three lioncels, three eaglets, three crosslets, three mullets, three estoiles, three crescents, or three fleurs de lys, all of them sable. The particular devices and figures selected thus to mark Cadency, like those charged upon Labels or Bordures, must be considered to have a special significance of their own, though this significance may frequently fail to be discerned in consequence of our being no longer able to trace out their association with the sources from which they were obtained. The alliances and the incidents that give these various Marks of Cadency, when it is possible to ascertain what they may have been, illustrate in a striking manner the motives by which the early Heralds were influenced when they differenced the Arms of Kinsmen.

No. 346.— Beauchamp of Elmely.	No. 347.— Beauchamp at Carlaverock.
No. 348.— Beauchamp of Warwick.	No. 349.— Beauchamp of Bletshoe.

Official Insignia sometimes become Marks of Cadency. Thus, John de Grandison, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1327-1369), on the bend in his paternal arms, No. 89, substitutes a golden mitre for the central eaglet, as in No. 350. William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury (A.D. 1381-1396), adopts a different course, and charges three golden mitres upon each point of the Label of Courtenay—Or, three torteaux, over all a label of three points az. charged on each point with as many mitres gold. And again, Henry le Despencer, Bishop of Norwich (A.D. 1370-1406), places about his paternal shield an azure bordure charged with eight golden mitres (see the largest shield in No. 351). On his official seal the canopied effigy of the Bishop stands between this, his personal Shield, and the Shield of his see—az., three mitres or: but his Secretum, or private seal, is much more interesting, as an heraldic image of the man himself. Haughty, fierce, cruel, and pugnacious, his career not less inglorious as a military commander than as a churchman, this Henry le Despencer, a grandson of the unhappy favourite of the no less hapless Edward II., was one of the war-loving prelates who occasionally appear sustaining a strange, and yet as it would seem a characteristic, part in the romantic drama of mediæval history. His Secretum, No. 351, displays his Shield of Despencer, differenced with his bordure of mitres, couché from a large mantled helm, surmounted by a mitre, in place of a crest-coronet, which supports the Despencer crest, a silver griffin’s head of ample size; on either side are the Shields of the see of Norwich, and of Ferrers (the Bishop’s mother was Anne, daughter of William Lord Ferrers of Groby)—Or, seven mascles, three three and one, gu.; the legend is, S . HENRICI . DESPENCER . NORWICENSIS . EPISCOPI.

No. 350.— Bishop Grandison.	No. 351.— Secretum of Bishop le Despencer.

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 principal 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, illustrates 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.

No. 354.	No. 353.— Thomas le Scrope.	No. 355.

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., crusilée 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.

No. 356.— Lord Latimer.	No. 358.— Sir William de Brewys.	No. 357.— Neville.

Differences of Illegitimacy, which rightly and indeed necessarily are included under the general head of “Cadency,” do not appear at any time to have assumed 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 Longespée, Earl of Salisbury, son of Henry II. and Fair Rosamond, No. 197. This Shield is supposed to have been assumed 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 assigned to Geoffrey Count of Anjou, was really borne by the Founder of the House of Plantagenet, Earl William Longespée 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 assigned to themselves by the Sovereign, or such as they assumed 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.

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.

No. 360.— Beaufort before 1397.	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 passed 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 componée 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.

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; componée arg. and az., by the Duke of Grafton; and, gules charged with three white roses, by the Duke of St. Albans.

No. 363.— Sir Roger de Clarendon.	No. 364.— Radolphus de Arundel.

Sir Roger de Clarendon, illegitimate son of the Black Prince, bore on a sable bend the three Ostrich Feathers of his illustrious 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 componée 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 componée when they became legally legitimate. A bordure componée 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 componée 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 associated with its presence under special circumstances. 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 illustrate 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 assure 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.

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 assimilation 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 principal Charges to appear in distinct Shields, without either confusion or misapprehension.

It is highly probable, and indeed it may be assumed 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 illustrate 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 assigned 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. Planché, “are seen in the majority of Coats belonging to the nobility and gentry of the County Palatine of Chester.” Thus, since the year 1390, the arms of Grosvenor have been—Az., a garb or.

A cinquefoil, said to have been borne by him on a red Shield, was the device of Robert Fitz-Pernel, Earl of Leicester, who died in 1204. Accordingly, the cinquefoil, derived from him, as early as the thirteenth century, appears in token of feudal connection on the Shields of many families of Leicestershire. As I have already shown, (page 183) a Berkeley, who was of Leicestershire, substituted ten cinquefoils for the ten crosses patée of the Berkeley Shield; and thus he combined feudal Differencing with Cadency.

Many a red chevron or chevronel, with other devices, charged upon a golden field, or a gold chevron on a red field, is a sign of feudal alliance with the great house of De Clare, whose Shield was—Or, three chevronels gu., No. 124. For example, the Fitz-Ralphs, near neighbours of the De Clares at Clare in Suffolk, differenced the Shield of the Earls by charging silver fleurs de lys on each chevronel, as in No. 367 (E. 2); and, for secondary difference, they sometimes added a bordure azure, as in the fine early Brass at Pebmarsh, near Clare. Again: by a change of tinctures, without affecting the charges of the Shield, the Arms of L’Ercedeckne (now Archdeacon) are—Arg., three chevronels sa.

At Carlaverock, Edmund de Hastings, brother of the Earl, bore—Or, a maunche gu., with a label of five points sa., the Earl himself bearing simply—Or, a maunche gu., No. 276. And, close by the side of Edmond de Hastings was his friend and companion, the feudal ally, without doubt, of his house, John Paignel, a very proper comrade, as the chronicler testifies—

who differenced Hastings by change of tinctures, and bore—Vert, a maunche or.

The Shield of the noble house of De Luterell, or Loterel, I have blazoned with changed tinctures for two near kinsmen bearing that name (page 182), thus showing in what manner they marked their Cadency. This same shield, No. 368—Or, a bend between six martlets sa., was also differenced by other families to mark their feudal alliance with the house of Luterell. Thus, the De Furnivals, themselves a powerful and distinguished family, who held their lands by feudal tenure under the Luterells, in token of this alliance bore the Shield of De Luterell with a fresh change of tinctures; and, accordingly, the arms of the De Furnivals are well known as—Arg., a bend between six martlets gu. Then, while the Furnivals, for Cadency, differenced these arms amongst themselves, their feudal allies and dependants, the Ecclesalls or Ekeleshales, the Mounteneys, the Wadesles or Wadsleys, and the Worteles or Wortleys, all united in declaring their connection with their chief by assuming arms founded upon the Furnival Coat. These very interesting and characteristic examples of feudal Differencing are well blazoned, as follows, in the Roll of Edward II. For De Ecclesall—Sa., a bend between six martlets or: for De Mounteney—Gu., a bend between six martlets or: for De Wadsley—Arg., on a bend between six martlets gu., three escallops or, No. 369: and for De Wortley—Arg., on a bend between six martlets gu., three bezants, No. 370.

No. 368.— De Luterell.	No. 369.— De Wadsley.	No. 370.— De Wortley.

The Mounteneys further difference their common arms, for Cadency, after this manner. Instead of gules, Sir Ernauf de Mounteney has the field of his shield azure, his bend and martlets being golden: Sir John bears these same arms, but charges his bend with a mullet gules, No. 371: Sir T. de Mounteney bears Sir John’s arms, but with a field gules: and another Sir John cotises his bend thus—Gu., a bend cotised between six martlets or, No. 372.

No. 371.— Sir John de Mounteney.	No. 372.— Sir John de Mounteney.

North of the Tweed, also, the same principle is found to be exemplified in Scottish Heraldry. “In Annandale,” writes Mr. Seton, “the chief and saltire of the Bruces are carried (of different tinctures and with additional figures) by the Jardines, Kirkpatricks, Johnstons, and other families.” The arms of Bruce are—Or, a saltire and a chief gu., No. 73: those of Jardine are—Arg., a saltire and a chief gu., the latter charged with three mullets of the field, pierced of the second: and the arms of Kirkpatrick are—Arg., a saltire and chief az., the latter charged with three cushions or. This coat of Kirkpatrick is also borne by the Johnstons, the tinctures differenced thus—Arg., a saltire sa., and on a chief gu. three cushions or.

Once more, returning to the southern side of the Scottish border, of Richard de Neville, the renowned “King-maker,” we find it to be recorded that, so great was his popularity at Calais, of which city he was governor, that his Badges were universally adopted,—“no man esteeming himself gallant whose head was not adorned with his silver ragged staff (No. 294); nor was any door frequented, that had not his white cross (silver saltire, No. 121) painted thereon.” This was an extravagant application of the earlier usage in denoting feudal alliance, such as was in keeping with the heraldic sentiment of the second half of the fourteenth century. Those good citizens of Calais, however, who were Neville-worshippers four hundred years ago, were not singular in exhibiting an armorial ensign at the entrance to their houses. Numerous, indeed, are the doorways in various parts of England, and particularly in the counties of Surrey, Sussex, and Norfolk, which in the “sign of the chequers” still display the insignia (chequée or and az., No. 68) of the once mighty Earls of Warrenne and Surrey; and thus show that relics of the old feudal influence are endowed with a tenacious vitality, which prolongs their existence for ages after the feudal system itself has passed away. But no doubt some cases must be referred to the less romantic explanation of the reckoning board of the Steward.

Differencing adopted, so far as now is apparent, simply for the sake of distinction, lays open before the student of Heraldry a wide and a diversified field of inquiry. All the miscellaneous charges that are associated in blazon with the Ordinaries, and also with the Subordinaries, thus are brought under consideration; and, without a doubt, it was for the express purpose of Differencing that many of these charges were introduced into English Heraldry. How far some remote degree of relationship, or some subordinate feudal motive now lost to sight and forgotten, may originally have affected the choice of Charges “for difference,” it is not possible now to determine; nor can we always follow the rebus-loving search for a “Difference,” that might speak through that allusive quality which is a primary element of the Herald’s science. We do know that the act of bearing the same arms by different families, without some heraldic Difference, was of very rare occurrence; and that, when it did occur, it was regarded with marked surprise, and on more than one occasion led to a memorable controversy: and, further, we find great numbers of early differenced Shields, which illustrate in a very effective manner the growth and development of English Heraldry. Shields of this order have strong claims on our attention. The examples that I am able here to place before students are to be regarded simply as specimens, few in number, and yet sufficient to show some of the varied forms under which early Differencing was effected.

The proceedings in the High Court of Chivalry in the suit between Sir Richard le Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, relative to the right to the Arms—Azure, a bend or, No. 111—commenced on the 17th of August 1385, and the final judgment of the King himself upon the appeal of the defendant against the finding of the Court was not pronounced till the 27th of May 1390. On the 15th of May 1389 the judgment of the Court assigned the arms—Azure, a bend or—to Sir Richard le Scrope; and to Sir Robert Grosvenor, these arms—Az., a bend or, within a plain bordure argent. Thus the Court confirmed to Sir Richard le Scrope the right to bear the Ordinary in its severe simplicity, without any other charge and without any Difference: and, at the same time, it was decided that these arms of Scrope should be differenced, in order that they might become the arms of Grosvenor, and the “Difference” was to be a plain silver bordure. The whole of the proceedings in this remarkable case are preserved, and have been published; and they derive a peculiar interest from the circumstance, that amongst the witnesses who gave evidence was the father of English Poetry, Geoffrey Chaucer. Appeal having been made to the Sovereign, Richard II. determined that a “plain bordure argent” was a Mark of Cadency, good and right, and perfectly sufficient as a Difference “between Cousin and Cousin in blood”; but that it was “not a sufficient Difference in Arms between two strangers in blood in one kingdom.” The King, therefore, cancelled and annulled the sentence of the Court of Chivalry; and in so doing he gave a very clear definition of the distinction to be observed in Heraldry between kinsmen and strangers in blood. Then it was that the Shield, Azure, a garb or, was adopted as the arms of Grosvenor. We may assume, that the judgment of the Court would have been confirmed by the King, had Sir Robert Grosvenor been commanded to blazon his golden bend between two garbs, or charged with one or more garbs, or with three garbs on a chief, or with any other decided Difference which would be palpably distinct from a Mark of Cadency.

The examples of Differenced Shields which follow I have selected from the Roll of Edward II. It will be seen that in each small group of these examples some primary feature of the composition is common to every Shield, so that the distinction between the Shields in each group is effected either by a simple change of tinctures, or by the introduction of various secondary charges.

Chiefs.—Sir John de Arderne—Gu., crusilée and a chief or. Sir Thomas le Rous—Erm., on a chief indented gu. two escallops arg. Sir John de Clintone—Arg., on a chief az. two fleurs de lys or, No. 74. Sir John de Clintone, of Maxtoke—Arg., on a chief az. two mullets or, No. 75: here the Difference denotes Cadency as well as a distinct individuality.

Bends.—Sir Robert Poutrel.—Or, on a bend az. three fleurs de lys arg. Sir Walter de Bermyngham—Arg., on a bend gu., cotised az., three esallops or. Oliver de Bohun—Az., on a bend, cotised and between six lioncels or, three escallops gu., No. 321.

Fesses and Bars.—Sir John de Dageworth—Erm., a fesse gu. bezantée, No. 80. Sir G. de Wachesham—Arg., a fesse and in chief three crescents gu. Sir R. de Coleville—Or, a fesse gu., and in chief three torteaux. Sir J. de Geytone—Arg., a fesse between six fleurs de lys gu. Sir G. de Ousflet—Arg., on a fesse az. three fleurs de lys or. Sir R. de Lomelye (Lumley)—Gu., on a fesse between three popinjays arg., as many mullets sa. Sir B. Badlesmere—Arg., a fesse between bars gemelles gu. Sir G. de la Mere—Or, a fesse between bars gemelles az., No. 84. Sir J. de Preieres—Gu., a fesse between bars gemelles arg. Sir J. Wake—Or, two bars gu., in chief three torteaux, No. 82. Sir B. Pycot—Az., two bars or, in chief three bezants. Sir R. de Wedone—Arg., two bars gu., in chief three martlets sa. Sir R. Bordet—Az., two bars or, on the uppermost three martlets gu. Sir R. de Royinge—Arg., three bars and an orle of martlets gu. Sir N. de Estoteville—Barry arg. and gu., three lioncels sa. Sir R. de Yngelfeld—Barrulée arg. and gu., on a chief or a lion pass. az. Sir W. de Monecastre—Barrulée arg. and gu., on a bend sa. three escallops or. Sir T. de Poninge—Barry or and vert, on a bend gu. three mullets arg.

Crosses.—Sir N. de Weylande—Arg., on a cross gu. five escallops or. Sir R. Bygod—Or, on a cross gu. five escallops arg. Sir Wm. Kirketot—Az., on a cross arg. five escallops gu. Sir Wm. de Berham—Sa., a cross between four crescents arg. Sir R. de Bannebury—Arg., a cross patée between four mullets gu. Sir J. Randolf—Gu., on a cross arg. five mullets sa. Sir G. de Durem—Arg., on a cross gu. five fleurs de lys or. Sir P. de Geytone—Arg., crusilée and three fleurs de lys az. Sir R. de Hoftot—Az., a cross patée erm. between four roses erm.

Chevrons.—Sir G. Rossel—Or, a chevron az., between three roses gu. Sir J. de Cretinge—Arg., a chevron between three mullets gu. Sir R. Malet—Sa., a chevron between three buckles arg. Sir T. de Anvers—Gu., a chevron between three mullets or. Sir Wm. de Berkeroles—Az., a chevron between three crescents or. Sir W. Bluet—Or, a chevron between three eagles vert. Sir R. de Caple—Arg., a chevron gu. between three torteaux. Sir T. Malet—Sa., a chevron between three buckles arg. Sir R. de Peyvre—Arg., on a chevron az. three fleurs de lys or, No. 125. Sir R. de Boterels—Chequée or and gu., on a chevron az. three horseshoes arg.

Lions.—The Earl of Lincoln—Or, a lion rampt. purp., No. 194. The Earl of Arundel—Gu., a lion rampt. or. Sir Henry de Percy—Or, a lion rampt. az., No. 196. Sir John Mowbray—Gu., a lion rampt. arg., No. 193. Sir R. de Sottone (Sutton)—Or, a lion rampt. vert. Sir J. de Nortone—Vert, a lion rampt. or. Sir W. Fauconberg—Arg., a lion rampt. az. Sir G. de Hautville—Sa., crusilée, a lion rampt. arg. Sir —— de Mountfort—Arg., crusilée gu., a lion rampt. az. Sir Wm. Maufee—Arg., semée of escallops gu., a lion rampt. sa. Sir J. de Creppinge—Gu., billetée or, a lion rampt. arg. Sir R. de Asscheby—Arg., a lion rampt. sa. billetée or. Sir J. de Deyville—Gu., semée de lys, a lion rampt. arg. Arg., within a bordure gu. bezantée, a lion rampt. sa., for Sir T. de Pickering; and, Arg., within an orle of roses gu., a lion rampt. sa., for Sir R. Pierpound, both apparently founded on the shield of the Earl of Cornwall, No. 140, which also is blazoned in this Roll. Sir J. Le Strange—Gu., two lions pass. arg., No. 191. Sir J. de Someri—Or, two lions pass. az. Sir R. de St. Waly—Or, two lions pass. gu. Sir N. Carru (Carew)—Or, three lions pass. sa. Sir J. Giffard—Gu., three lions pass. arg., No. 192. Sir R. le Fitz Payn—Gu., three lions pass. arg., over all a bendlet az. Sir G. de Canvyle—Az., three lions pass arg. In the beautiful chantry of Abbot Thomas Ramryge, at St. Albans, one of the large sculptured Shields is charged with a lion rampant within what may be considered to be an orle of roses—the arms, as I have just shown, assigned in the Roll of Edward II. to Sir R. Pierpound. This Shield, carefully drawn by the engraver himself from the original in the Abbey Church of St. Alban, is represented in No. 373.

No. 373.— At St. Albans.

Augmentation, or Augmentation of Honour, is a term employed to denote an addition to a Shield of arms, specially granted by the Sovereign to commemorate some worthy or illustrious deed, and forming an integral element of the Shield as an hereditary bearing. Such additions will be found marshalled in the forms of Chiefs and Inescutcheons as Cantons, or as Quarterings; or they may assume the character of additional charges. Also, this same term denotes similar additions of Crests, Badges, or any other accessories of Shields.

The Augmentation displayed upon the Ducal Shield of Wellington, a most honourable exception to the prevailing degenerate heraldic feeling of the period in which it was granted to the Great Duke, in characteristic and expressive qualities is second to no other example of its own class and order. This true Augmentation of Honour is the National Device of the British Empire, as it is blazoned in the “Union Jack,” charged upon an inescutcheon, and displayed upon the honour point of the Duke’s paternal Shield.

An equally significant Augmentation of an earlier date is borne in the Arms of Howard. These Arms before the battle of Flodden were—Gu., a bend between six crosses crosslets fitchée arg. To commemorate the great victory won by him at Flodden Field, Sept. 9, 1513, when James IV. of Scotland was defeated and slain, Henry VIII. granted to Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and to his descendants, as an Augmentation of Honour, the Royal Shield of Scotland (No. 138), but having a demi-lion only, which is pierced through the mouth with an arrow, to be borne in the middle of the bend of his proper arms. This Shield is represented in No. 374; and in No. 374A the augmentation is shown on a larger scale.

No. 374.— Howard, after Flodden.	No. 374A.—The Howard Augmentation.

A small group of additional examples will be sufficient to illustrate this most interesting class of historical Arms, and at the same time will not fail to excite in students a desire very considerably to extend the series through their own inquiries and researches. In memory of the devoted courage and all-important services of Jane Lane, after the disastrous battle of Worcester, Charles II. granted as an Augmentation a Canton of England (No. 187 marshalled on a canton), to be added to the hereditary Coat of Lane, which is—Per fesse or and az., a chevron gu. between three mullets counterchanged. The Crest of the family of De la Bere is said to have been conferred by the Black Prince upon Sir Richard de la Bere, as a memorial of the good service rendered by that gallant knight on the memorable field of Cressi. This Crest is—Out of a crest-coronet a plume of five ostrich feathers per pale arg. and az., the Plantagenet colours—the device (as Mr. Lower observes) being evidently derived from the Prince’s own Badge, and also forming a variety of the “panache,” the Crest then held in such high estimation. The heart charged upon the shield of Douglas (see Nos. 156, 157, p. 74) is another remarkable Augmentation. So also is the adoption of the armorial insignia of the Confessor, No. 2, by Richard II., and his marshalling it upon his own Royal Shield, impaled to the dexter with the quartered arms of France and England.

English Heraldry has been required to recognise another and a perfectly distinct class of “Augmentations,” which consist of additions to the blazonry of a Shield or of additional quarterings or accessories, granted as tokens of Royal favour, for heraldic display, but without any particular “merit” in the receiver, or any special historical significance in themselves. Augmentations of this order may be considered to have been first introduced by Richard II., when he granted, “out of his mere grace,” to his favourite Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, Marquess of Dublin and Duke of Ireland, a differenced Coat of St. Edmund (No. 3)—Az., three crowns or, within a bordure argent, to be quartered with the De Vere arms as the arms of Ireland. In the same spirit, Richard II. granted, as similar Augmentations, the arms of the Confessor to be marshalled, with Differences, on their Shields by Thomas and John Holland, Dukes of Surrey and Exeter, and by Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. It will be remembered that it was one of the capital charges against the then Earl of Surrey, a lineal descendant of this Thomas Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk, in 1546, that he had assumed, without the special licence of Henry VIII., the same arms of the Confessor as an augmentation.

By Edward IV. similar augmentations, “by grace” and not “for merit,” were granted; and by Henry VIII. the system was carried to excess in the grants made to augment the armorial blazonry of Anne Boleyn, and of his English consorts, her successors.

Abatement is a term which was unknown until it made its appearance in certain heraldic writings of the sixteenth century, when it was used to denote such marks or devices as, by the writers in question, were held to be the reverse of honourable Augmentation—Augmentations of dishonour indeed, and tokens of degradation. True Heraldry refuses to recognise all such pretended abatements, for the simple reason that they never did exist, and if they could exist at all, they would be in direct antagonism to its nature, its principles, and its entire course of action. Honourable itself, Heraldry can give expression only to what conveys honour, and it records and commemorates only what is to be honoured and held in esteem.

The very idea of an heraldic Abatement implies, if not a complete ignorance, certainly a thorough misconception of the character and the office of Heraldry. Even if Heraldry were to attempt to stigmatise what is, and what ought to be esteemed, dishonourable, who would voluntarily accept insignia of disgrace, and charge and display them upon his Shield, and transmit them to his descendants? And the believers in Abatement must hold that Heraldry can exert a compulsory legislative power, which might command a man to blazon his own disgrace, and force him to exhibit and to retain, and also to bequeath, any such blazonry. A belief in heraldic Abatement, however, is by no means singular or rare. A curious example of its existence was recently brought under my notice, in connection with one of the most renowned of the historical devices of English Heraldry. The bear, the badge of the Beauchamps, Earls of Warwick, which appears at the feet of the effigy of Earl Richard in the Beauchamp chapel at Warwick, in accordance with a special provision to that effect, is “muzzled”; and, wearing a muzzle has this bear been borne, as their Badge, by the successors of the Beauchamps in the Warwick Earldom, the Earls of the houses of Neville, Dudley, Rich, and Greville. But, it would seem that a legend has found credence at Warwick Castle itself, which would associate the muzzle of the bear with some dishonourable action of an Earl of the olden time; and, consequently, it was proposed that at length this Abatement should be removed from the bears still at Warwick! Earl Richard de Beauchamp was not exactly the man to have displayed upon his bear any ensign of dishonour; nor were his son-in-law, the “King-maker,” and Queen Elizabeth’s Robert Dudley, at all more probable subjects for any similar display; still, it is quite certain that they bore the muzzled bear, as he appears on the seal of the great Earl, No. 448.7 That muzzle, doubtless, has its becoming heraldic significance, without in the slightest degree partaking in the assumed character of an Abatement. I hope eventually to be able to trace out conclusively what the muzzle may really imply, and I commend the research to other inquirers: meanwhile, neither at Warwick nor elsewhere is there any such thing as “Abatement” in English Heraldry.

7. See Frontispiece.

CHAPTER XIV
CRESTS

“On high their glittering crests they toss.” —Lord of the Isles.