The badges represented in Prince Arthur's Book in the College of Arms (an important source of our knowledge upon the subject) are all upon backgrounds; and the curious divisions of the colours on the backgrounds would seem to show that each badge had its own background, several badges being only met with upon the same ground when that happens to be the true background belonging to them. But in attempting to deduce rules, it should be remembered that in all and every armorial matter there was greater laxity of rule at the period of the actual use of arms as a reality of life than it was possible to permit when the multiplication of arms as paper insignia made regulation necessary and more restrictive; so that an occasional variation from any deduction need not necessarily vitiate the conclusion, even in a matter exclusively relating to the shield. How much more, then, must we remain in doubt when dealing with badges which appear to have been so largely a matter of personal caprice.

It is a striking comment that of all the badges presently to be referred to of the Stafford family, each single one is depicted upon a background. It is a noticeable fact that of the eighteen "badges" exemplified as belonging to the family of Stafford, nine are upon parti-coloured fields. This is not an unreasonable proportion if the fields are considered to be the livery colours of the families from whom the badges were originally derived, but it is altogether out of proportion to the number of shields in any roll of arms which would have the field party per pale, or party in any other form of division. With the exception of the second badge, which is on a striped background of green and white, all the party backgrounds are party per pale, which was the most usual way of depicting a livery in the few records which have come down to us of the heraldic use of livery colours, and of the eighteen badges, no less than eight are upon a parti-coloured field of which the dexter is sable and the sinister gules. Scarlet and black are known to have been the livery colours of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was beheaded in 1521. The arms of the town of Buckingham are on a field per pale sable and gules.

With regard to the descent of badges and the laws which govern their descent still less is known. The answer to the question, "How did badges descend?" is simple: "Nobody knows." One can only hazard opinions more or less pious, of more or less value. It is distinctly a point upon which it is risky to be dogmatic, and we must wait for the development which will follow the recent revival of the granting of standards. As cases occur for decision precedents will be found and disclosed. Whilst the secrecy of the records of the College of Arms is so jealously preserved it is impossible to speak definitely at present, for an exact and comprehensive knowledge of exact and authoritative instances of fact is necessary before a decision can be definitely put forward. Unless some officer of arms will carefully collate the information which can be gleaned from the records in the College of Arms which are relevant to the subject, it does not seem likely that our knowledge will advance greatly.

The grant of supporters to the Earl of Stafford, as under, is worthy of attention.

"To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, John Anstis Esq^r Garter principal King of Arms, sends greeting, Whereas his late Majesty King James the Second by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, did create Henry Stafford Howard to be Earl of Stafford, to have and hold the same to him and the heirs males of his body; and for default thereof to John and Francis his Brothers and the heirs males of their bodies respectively, whereby the said Earldom is now legally vested in the right Hon^ble William Stafford Howard Son and Heir of the said John; And in regard that y^e said Henry late Earl of Stafford omitted to take any Grant of Supporters, which the Peers of this Realm have an indisputable Right to use and bear, the right Hon^ble Henry Bowes Howard Earl of Berkshire Deputy (with the Royal Approbation) of his Grace Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshall and Hereditary Marshall of England hath been pleased to direct me to grant to the said right Hon^ble William Stafford Howard Earl of Stafford the Supporters formerly granted to y^e late Viscount Stafford, Grandfather to the said Earl; as also to order me to cause to be depicted in the Margin of my said Grant y^e Arms of Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester quartered with the Arms of the said Earl of Stafford, together with the Badges of the said Noble Family of Stafford: Now these presents Witness that according to the consent of the said Earl of Berkshire signified under his Lordship's hand and seal I do by the Authority and power annexed to my Office hereby grant and assign to y^e said Right Honourable William Stafford Howard Earl of Stafford, the following Supporters which were heretofore borne by the late Lord Viscount Stafford, that is to say, on the Dexter side a Lion Argent, and on the Sinister Side a Swan surgiant Argent Gorged with a Ducal Coronet per Pale Gules and sable beaked and membered of the Second; to be used and borne at all times and upon all occasions by the said Earl of Stafford and the heirs males of his body, and such persons to whom the said Earldom shall descend according to the Law and Practice of Arms without the let or interruption of any Person or Persons whatsoever. And in pursuance of the Warrant of the said Earl of Berkshire, The Arms of Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester, as the same are on a Plate remaining in the Chapel of S^t George within y^e Castle of Windsor, set up there for his Descendant the Duke of Buckingham are depicted in the margin, and quartered in such place and manner as the same were formerly borne by the Staffords Dukes of Buckingham, together with Eighteen badges belonging to the said most ancient and illustrious Family of Stafford, as the same are represented in a Manuscript remaining in the College of Arms (Fig. 674). In Witness whereof I the said Garter have hereto subscribed my Name and affixed the Seal of my Office this First Day of August Anno Domini 1720.

It may be of interest to call attention to the fact that in this exemplification the Royal Arms are displayed before those of Stafford. On the face of it, the document—as far as it relates to the badges—is no more than a certificate or exemplification, in which case it is undoubted evidence that badges descend to the heir-general as do quarterings; but there is the possibility that the document is a re-grant in the nature of an exemplification following a Royal Licence, or a re-grant to remove uncertainty as to the attainder. And if the document—as far as its relation to the badges goes—has any of the character of a grant, it can have but little value as evidence of the descent of badges. It is remarkable that it is absolutely silent as to the future destination of the badges. The real fact is that the whole subject of the descent and devolution of badges is shrouded in mystery. Each of the badges (Fig. 674) is depicted within a circle adorned with a succession of Stafford knots, as is shown in the one instance at the head. Five of these badges appear upon a well-known portrait of Edward, Duke of Buckingham. The fact that some of these badges are really crests depicted upon wreaths goes far as an authority for the use of a crest upon livery buttons for the purposes of a badge.

In ancient days all records seemed to point to the fact that badges were personal, and that though they were worn by the retainers, they were the property of the head of the family, rather than (as the arms) of the whole family, and though the information available is meagre to the last degree, it would appear probable that in all cases where their use by other members of the family than the head of the house can be proved, the likelihood is that the cadets would render feudal service and would wear the badge as retainers of the man whose standard they followed into battle, so that we should expect to find the badge following the same descent as the peerage, together with the lands and liabilities which accompanied it. This undoubtedly makes for the inheritance of a badge upon the same line of descent as a barony by writ, and such a method of inheritance accounts for the known descent of most of the badges heraldically familiar to us. Probably we shall be right in so accepting it as the ancient rule of inheritance. But, on the other hand, a careful examination of the "Book of Standards," now preserved in the College of Arms, provides several examples charged with marks of cadency. But here again one is in ignorance whether this is an admission of inheritance by cadets, or whether the cases should be considered as grants of differenced versions to cadets. This then gives us the badge, the property in and of which would descend to the heir-general (and perhaps also to cadets), whilst it would be used (if there were no inherited right) in token of allegiance or service, actual, quasi-actual, or sentimental, by the cadets of the house and their servants; for whilst the use of the cockade is a survival of the right to be waited on and served by a soldier servant, the use of a badge by a cadet may be a survival and reminder of the day when (until they married heiresses and continued or founded other families) the cadets of a house owed and gave military service to the head of their own family, and in return were supported by him.

From the wording of the recent grants of badges I believe the intention, however, is that the badge is to descend of right to all of those people on whom a right to it would devolve if it were a quartering.

The use of badges having been so limited, the absence of rule and regulation leaves it very much a matter of personal taste how badges, where they exist, shall be heraldically depicted, and perhaps it is better to leave their manner of display to artistic requirements. The most usual place, when depicted in conjunction with an achievement, is on either side of the crest, and they may well be placed in that position. Where they exist, however, they ought undoubtedly to be continued in use upon the liveries of the servants, and the present practice is for them to be placed on the livery buttons, and embroidered upon the epaulettes or on the sleeves of state liveries. Undoubtedly the former practice of placing the badge upon the servants' livery is the precursor of the present vogue of placing crests upon livery buttons, and many heraldic writers complain of the impropriety of placing the crest in such a position. I am not sure that I myself may not have been guilty in this way; but when one bears in mind the number of cases in which the badge and the crest are identical, and when, as in the above instance, devices which are undoubtedly crests are exemplified as and termed badges, even as such being represented upon wreaths, and even in that form granted upon standards, whilst in other cases the action has been the reverse, it leaves one under the necessity of being careful in making definite assertions.

Having dealt with the laws (if there ever were any) and the practice concerning the use and display of badges in former days, it will be of interest to notice some of those which were anciently in use.

I have already referred to the badge of the ostrich feathers, now borne exclusively by the heir-apparent to the throne. The old legend that the Black Prince won the badge at the battle of Crecy by the capture of John, King of Bohemia, together with the motto "Ich dien," has been long since exploded. Sir Harris Nicolas brought to notice the fact that among certain pieces of plate belonging to Queen Philippa of Hainault was a large silver-gilt dish enamelled with a black escutcheon with ostrich feathers, "vuo scuch nigro cum pennis de ostrich," and upon the strength of that, suggested that the ostrich feather was probably originally a badge of the Counts of Hainault derived from the County of Ostrevaus, a title which was held by their eldest sons. The suggestion in itself seems probable enough and may be correct, but it would not account for the use of the ostrich feathers by the Mowbray family, who did not descend from the marriage of Edward III. and Philippa of Hainault. Contemporary proof of the use of badges is often difficult to find. The Mowbrays had many badges, and certainly do not appear to have made any very extensive use of the ostrich feathers. But there seems to be very definite authority for the existence of the badge. There is in one of the records of the College of Arms (R. 22, 67), which is itself a copy of another record, the following statement:—

"The discent of Mowbray written at length in lattin from the Abby booke of newborough wherein Rich 2 gaue to Thomas Duke of norff. & Erle Marshall the armes of Saint Edward Confessor in theis words:

"Et dedit eidem Thome ad pertandum in sigillo et vexillo quo arma S^ti Edwardi. Idcirco arma bipartata portavit scil' 't Sci Edwardi et domini marcialis angliæ cum duabus pennis strutionis erectis et super crestam leonem et duo parva scuta cum leonibus et utraq' parto predictorum armorum."

Accompanying this is a rough-tricked sketch of the arms upon which the illustration (Fig. 675) has been based. Below this extract in the College Records is written in another hand: "I find this then in ye chancell window of Effingham by Bungay in the top of the cot window with Mowbraye & Segrave on the side in glass there."

Who the writer was I am unaware. He appends a further sketch to his note, which slightly differs. No helmet or crest is shown, and the central shield has only the arms of Brotherton. The feathers which flank it are both enfiled below the shield by one coronet. Of the smaller shields at the side, the dexter bears the arms of Mowbray and the sinister those of Segrave. Possibly the Mowbrays, as recognised members of the Royal Family, bore the badge by subsequent grant and authorisation and not on the simple basis of inheritance.

An ostrich feather piercing a scroll was certainly the favourite badge of the Black Prince and so appears on several of his seals, and triplicated it occurs on his "shield of peace" (Fig. 478), which, set up under the instructions in his will, still remains on his monument in Canterbury Cathedral. The arms of Sir Roger de Clarendon, the illegitimate son of the Black Prince, were derived from this "shield for peace," which I take it was not really a coat of arms at all, but merely the badge of the Prince depicted upon his livery colour, and which might equally have been displayed upon a roundle. In the form of a shield bearing three feathers the badge occurs on the obverse of the second seal of Henry IV. in 1411. A single ostrich feather with the motto "Ich dien" upon the scroll is to be seen on the seal of Edward, Duke of York, who was killed at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. Henry IV. as Duke of Lancaster placed on either side of his escutcheon an ostrich feather with a garter or belt carrying the motto "Sovereygne" twined around the feather, John of Gaunt used the badge with a chain laid along the quill, and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, used it with a garter and buckle instead of the chain; whilst John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, placed an ostrich feather on each side of his shield, the quills in his case being compony argent and azure, like the bordure round his arms.

There is a note in Harl. MS. 304, folio 12, which, if it be strictly accurate, is of some importance. It is to the effect that the "feather silver with the pen gold is the King's, the ostrich feather pen and all silver is the Prince's (i.e. the Prince of Wales), and the ostrich feather gold the pen ermine is the Duke of Lancaster's." That statement evidently relates to a time when the three were in existence contemporaneously, i.e. before the accession of Henry IV. In the reign of Richard II. there was no Prince of Wales. During the reign of Edward III. from 1376 onwards, Richard, afterwards Richard II., was Prince of Wales, and John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster (so cr. 1362). But John of Gaunt used the feather in the form above stated, and to find a Duke of Lancaster before John of Gaunt we must go back to before 1360, when we have Edward III. as King, the Black Prince as Prince, and Henry of Lancaster (father-in-law of John of Gaunt) as Duke of Lancaster. He derived from Henry III., and like the Mowbrays had no blood descent from Philippa of Hainault. A curious confirmation of my suggestion that black was the livery colour of the Black Prince is found in the fact that there was in a window in St. Dunstan's Church, London, within a wreath of roses a roundle per pale sanguine and azure (these being unquestionably livery colours), a plume of ostrich feathers argent, quilled or, enfiled by a scroll bearing the words "Ich dien." Above was the Prince's coronet and the letters E. & P., one on each side of the plume. This was intended for Edward VI., doubtless being erected in the reign of Henry VIII. The badge in the form in which we know it, i.e. enfiled by the princely coronet, dates from about the beginning of the Stuart dynasty, since when it appears to have been exclusively reserved for the eldest son and heir-apparent to the throne. At the same time the right to the display of the badge would appear to have been reserved by the Sovereign, and Woodward remarks:—

"On the Privy Seals of our Sovereigns the ostrich feather is still employed as a badge. The shield of arms is usually placed between two lions sejant guardant addorsed, each holding the feather. On the Privy Seal of Henry VIII. the feathers are used without the lions, and this was the case on the majority of the seals of the Duchy of Lancaster. On the reverse of the present seal of the Duchy the feathers appear to be ermine."

Fig. 676 shows the seal of James II. for the Duchy of Lancaster. The seal of the Lancashire County Council shows a shield supported by two talbots sejant addorsed, each supporting in the exterior paw an ostrich feather semé-de-lis. It is possible that the talbots may be intended for lions and the fleurs-de-lis for ermine spots. The silver swan, one of the badges of King Henry V., was used also by Henry IV. It was derived from the De Bohuns, Mary de Bohun being the wife of Henry IV. From the De Bohuns it has been traced to the Mandevilles, Earls of Essex, who may have adopted it to typify their descent from Adam Fitz Swanne, temp. Conquest. Fig. 33 on the same plate is the white hart of Richard II. Although some have traced this badge from the white hind used as a badge by Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent, the mother of Richard II., it is probably a device punning upon his name, "Rich-hart." Richard II. was not the heir of his mother. The heir was his half-brother, Thomas Holand, Earl of Kent, who did use the badge of the hind, and perhaps the real truth is that the Earl of Kent having the better claim to the hind, Richard was under the necessity of making an alteration which the obvious pun upon his name suggested. There is no doubt that the crest of Ireland originated therefrom. The stag in this case was undoubtedly "lodged" in the earliest versions, and I have been much interested in tracing the steps by which the springing attitude has developed owing to the copying of badly drawn examples.

Amongst the many Royal and other badges in this country there are some of considerable interest. Fig. 677 represents the famous badge of the "broom-cod" or "planta genista," from which the name of the dynasty was derived. It appears to have been first used by King Henry II., though it figures in the decoration of the tomb of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. "Peascod" Street in Windsor of course derives its name therefrom. The well-known badges of the white and red roses of York and Lancaster have been already referred to, and Fig. 678, the well-known device of the "rose-en-soliel" used by King Edward IV., was really a combination of two distinct badges, viz. "the blazing sun of York" and the "white rose of York." The rose again appears in 679, here dimidiated with the pomegranate of Catharine of Aragon. This is taken from the famous Tournament Roll (now in the College of Arms), which relates to the Tournament, 13th and 14th of February 1510, to celebrate the birth of Prince Henry.

Richard I., John, and Henry III. are all said to have used the device of the crescent and star (Fig. 680). Henry VII. is best known by his two badges of the crowned portcullis and the "sun-burst" (Fig. 681). The suggested origin of the former, that it was a pun on the name Tudor (i.e. two-door) is confirmed by the motto "Altera securitas" which was used with it, but at the same time is rather vitiated by the fact that it was also used by the Beauforts, who had no Tudor descent. Save a very tentative remark hazarded by Woodward, no explanation has as yet been suggested for the sun-burst. My own strong conviction, based on the fact that this particular badge was principally used by Henry VII., who was always known as Henry of Windsor, is that it is nothing more than an attempt to pictorially represent the name "Windsor" by depicting "winds" of "or." The badge is also attributed to Edward III., and he, like Henry VII., made his principal residence at Windsor. Edward IV. also used the white lion of March (whence is derived the shield of Ludlow: "Azure, a lion couchant guardant, between three roses argent," Ludlow being one of the fortified towns in the Welsh Marches), and the black bull which, though often termed "of Clarence," is generally associated with the Duchy of Cornwall. Richard III., as Duke of Gloucester, used a white boar.

The Earl of Northumberland used a silver crescent; the Earl of Douglas, a red hart; the Earl of Pembroke, a golden pack-horse with collar and traces; Lord Hastings bore as badge a black bull's head erased, gorged with a coronet; Lord Stanley, a golden griffin's leg, erased; Lord Howard, a white lion charged on the shoulder with a blue crescent; Sir Richard Dunstable adopted a white cock as a badge; Sir John Savage, a silver unicorn's head erased; Sir Simon Montford, a golden lily; Sir William Gresham, a green grasshopper.

Fig. 684.—Stafford Knot.	Fig. 685.—Wake or Ormonde Knot.
Fig. 686.—Bourchier Knot.	Fig. 687.—Heneage Knot.

Two curious badges are to be seen in Figs. 682 and 683. The former is an ape's clog argent, chained or, and was used by William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (d. 1450). Fig. 683, "a salet silver" (MS. Coll. of Arms, 2nd M. 16), is the badge of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1524). Various families used knots of different design, of which the best known is the Stafford knot (Fig. 684). The wholesale and improper appropriation of this badge with a territorial application has unfortunately caused it to be very generally referred to as a "Staffordshire" knot, and that it was the personal badge of the Lords Stafford is too often overlooked. Other badge knots are the Wake or Ormonde knot (Fig. 685), the Bourchier knot (Fig. 686), and the Heneage knot (Fig. 687).

The personal badges of the members of the Royal Family continued in use until the reign of Queen Anne, but from that time forward the Royal badges obtained a territorial character; the rose of England, the thistle of Scotland, and the shamrock of Ireland. To these popular consent has added the lotus-flower for India, the maple for Canada, and in a lesser degree the wattle or mimosa for Australia; but at present these lack any official confirmation. The two first named, nevertheless, figured on the Coronation Invitation Cards.

 

CHAPTER XXX

HERALDIC FLAGS, BANNERS, AND STANDARDS

When it comes to the display of flags, the British-born individual usually makes a hash of the whole business, and flies either the Sovereign's personal coat of arms, which really should only be made use of over a residence of the Sovereign when the Sovereign is actually there, or flown at sea when the Sovereign is on board; or else he uses the national flag, colloquially termed the "Union Jack," which, strictly speaking, and as a matter of law, ought never to be made use of on land except over the residence of the Sovereign in his absence, or on a fortress or other Government building. But recently an official answer has been given in Parliament, declaring what is presumably the pleasure of His Majesty to the effect that the Union Jack is the National Flag, and may be flown as such on land by any British subject. If this is the intention of the Crown, it is a pity that this permission has not been embodied in a Royal warrant.

The banner of St. George, which is a white flag with a plain red cross of St. George throughout, is now appropriated to the Order of the Garter, of which St. George is the patron saint, though I am by no means inclined to assert that it would be incorrect to make use of it upon a church which happened to be specifically placed under the patronage of St. George.

The white ensign, which is a white flag bearing the cross of St. George and in the upper quarter next to the staff a reproduction of the Union device, belongs to the Royal Navy, and certain privileged individuals to whom the right has been given by a specific warrant. The blue ensign, which is a plain blue flag with the Union device on a canton in the upper corner next the staff, belongs to the Royal Naval Reserve; and the red ensign, which is the same as the former, except that a red flag is substituted for the blue one, belongs to the ships of the merchant service. These three flags have been specifically called into being by specific warrants for certain purposes which are stated in these warrants, and these purposes being wholly connected with the sea, neither the blue, the red, nor the white ensign ought to be hoisted on land by anybody. Of course there is no penalty for doing so on land, though very drastic penalties can be enforced for misuse of these ensigns on the water, a step which is taken frequently enough. For a private person to use any one of these three flags on land for a private purpose, the only analogy which I can suggest to bring home to people the absurdity of such action would be to instance a private person for his own private pleasure adopting the exact uniform of some regiment whenever he might feel inclined to go bathing in the sea. If he were to do so, he would find under the recent Act that he had incurred the penalty, which would be promptly enforced, for bringing His Majesty's uniform into disrepute. It is much to be wished that the penalties exacted for the wrongful display of these flags at sea should be extended to their abuse on shore.

The development of the Union Jack and the warrants relating to it are dealt with herein by the Rev. J. R. Crawford, M.A., in a subsequent chapter, and I do not propose to further deal with the point, except to draw attention to a proposal, which is very often mooted, that some change or addition to the Union Jack should be made to typify the inclusion of the colonies.

But to begin with, what is the Union Jack? Probably most would be inclined to answer, "The flag of the Empire." It is nothing of the kind. It is in a way stretching the definition to describe it as the King's flag. Certainly the design of interlaced crosses is a badge of the King's, but that badge is of a later origin than the flag.

The flag itself is the fighting emblem of the Sovereign, which the Sovereign has declared shall be used by his soldiers or sailors for fighting purposes under certain specified circumstances. That it is used, even officially, in all sorts of circumstances with which the King's warrants are not concerned is beside the matter, for it is to the Royal Warrants that one must refer for the theory of the thing.

Now let us go further back, and trace the "argent, a cross gules," the part which is England's contribution to the Union Jack, which itself is a combination of the "crosses" of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick. The theory of one is the theory of the three, separately or conjoined.

"Argent, a cross gules" was never the coat of arms of England (except under the Commonwealth, when its use for armorial purposes may certainly be disregarded), and the reason it came to be regarded as the flag of England is simply and solely because fighting was always done under the supposed patronage of some saint, and England fought, not under the arms of England, but under the flag of St. George, the patron saint of England and of the Order of the Garter. The battle-cry "St. George for Merrie England!" is too well known to need more than the passing mention. Scotland fought under St. Andrew; Ireland, by a similar analogy, had for its patron saint St. Patrick (if indeed there was a Cross of St. Patrick before one was needed for the Union flag, which is a very doubtful point), and the Union Jack was not the combination of three territorial flags, but the combination of the recognised emblems of the three recognised saints, and though England claimed the sovereignty of France, and for that reason quartered the arms of France, no Englishman bothered about the patronage of St. Denis, and the emblem of St. Denis was never flown in this country. The fact that no change was ever made in the flag to typify Hanover, whilst Hanover duly had its place upon the arms, proves that the flag was recognised to be, and allowed to remain, the emblem of the three patron saints under whose patronage the British fought, and not the badge of any sovereignty or territorial area. If the colonies had already any saint of their own under whose patronage they had fought in bygone days, or in whose name they wished to fight in the future, there might be reason for including the emblem of that saint upon the fighting flag of the Empire; but they have no recognised saintly patrons, and they may just as well fight for our saints as choose others for themselves at so late a day; but having a flag which is a combination of the emblems of three saints, and which contains nothing that is not a part of those emblems, to make any addition heraldic or otherwise to it now would, in my opinion, be best expressed by the following illustration. Imagine three soldiers in full and complete uniform, one English, one Scottish, and one Irish, it being desired to evolve a uniform that should be taken from all three for use by a Union regiment. A tunic from one, trousers from another, and a helmet from a third, might be blended into a very effective and harmonious composite uniform. Following the analogy of putting a bordure, which is not the emblem of a saint, round the recognised emblems of the three recognised saints, and considering it to be in keeping because the bordure was heraldic and the emblems heraldic, one might argue, that because a uniform was clothing as was also a ballet-dancer's skirt, therefore a ballet-dancer's skirt outside the whole would be in keeping with the rest of the uniform. For myself I should dislike any addition to the Union device, as much as we should deride the donning of tulle skirts outside their tunics and trousers by the brigade of Guards.

The flag which should float from a church tower should have no more on it than the recognised ecclesiastical emblems of the saint to whom it is dedicated: the keys of St. Peter, the wheel of St. Catherine, the sword of St. Paul, the cross and martlets of St. Edmund, the lily of St. Mary, the emblem of the Holy Trinity, or whatever the emblem may be of the saint in question. (The alternative for a church is the banner of St. George, the patron saint of the realm.) The flags upon public buildings should bear the arms of the corporate bodies to whom those buildings belong. The flag to be flown by a private person, as the law now stands, should bear that person's private arms, if he has any, and if he has not he should be content to forego the pleasures arising from the use of bunting. A private flag should be double its height in length. The entire surface should be occupied by the coat of arms.

These flags of arms are banners, and it is quite a misnomer to term the banner of the Royal Arms the Royal Standard. The flags of arms hung over the stalls of the Knights of the Garter, St. Patrick, and the former Knights of the Bath are properly, and are always termed banners. The term standard properly refers to the long tapering flag used in battle, and under which an overlord mustered his retainers in battle. This did not display his armorial bearings. Next to the staff usually came the cross of St. George, which was depicted, of course, on a white field. This occupied rather less than one-third of the standard. The remainder of the standard was of the colour or colours of the livery, and thereupon was represented all sorts of devices, usually the badges and sometimes the crest. The motto was usually on transverse bands, which frequently divided the standard into compartments for the different badges. These mottoes from their nature are not war-cries, but undoubtedly relate and belong to the badges with which they appear in conjunction. The whole banner was usually fringed with the livery colours, giving the effect of a bordure compony. The use of standards does not seem, except for the ceremonial purposes of funerals, to have survived the Tudor period, this doubtless being the result of the creation of the standing army in the reign of Henry VIII. The few exotic standards, e.g., remaining from the Jacobite rebellion, seldom conform to the old patterns, but although the shape is altered, the artistic character largely remains in the regimental colours of the present day with their assorted regimental badges and scrolls with the names of battle honours.

With the recent revival of the granting of badges the standard has again been brought into use as the vehicle to carry the badge (Plate VIII.). The arms are now placed next the staff, and upon the rest of the field the badge is repeated or alternated with the crest. Badges and standards are now granted to any person already possessing a right to arms and willing to pay the necessary fees.

PLATE VIII.

The armorial use of the banner in connection with the display of heraldic achievements is very limited in this country. In the case of the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava the banner or flag is an integral and unchangeable part of the heraldic supporters, and in Ross-of-Bladensburg, e.g., it is similarly an integral part of the crest. In the warrant of augmentation granted to H.M. Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain on her marriage, banners of the Royal Arms of England were placed in the paws of her supporters. Other cases where arms have been depicted on banners are generally no more than matters of artistic design; but in the arms of Scotland as matriculated in Lyon Register for King Charles II. the supporters are accompanied by banners, the dexter being of the arms of Scotland, and the sinister the banner of St. Andrew. These banners possess rather a different character, and approach very closely to the German use. The same practice has been followed in the seals of the Duchy of Lancaster, inasmuch as on the obverse of the seal of George IV. and the seal of Queen Victoria the Royal supporters hold banners of the arms of England and of the Duchy (i.e. England, a label for difference). James I. on his Great Seal had the banners of Cadwallader (azure, a cross patté fitché or) and King Edgar (azure, a cross patonce between four martlets or), and on the Great Seal of Charles I. the dexter supporter holds a banner of St. George, and the sinister a banner of St. Andrew.

Of the heraldic use of the banner in Germany Ströhl writes:—

"The banner appears in a coat of arms, either in the hands or paws of the supporters (Fig. 688), also set up behind the shield, or the pavilion, as, for instance, in the larger achievement of his Majesty the German Emperor, in the large achievement of the kingdom of Prussia, of the dukedom of Saxe-Altenburg, and further in the Arms of State of Italy, Russia, Roumania, &c.

"Banners on the shield as charges, or on the helmet as a crest, are here, of course, not in question, but only those banners which serve as Prachtstücke (appendages of magnificence).

"The banners of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are long and narrow, and frequently run in stripes, like battlements. However, in the second half of the thirteenth century flags were also to be met with, with the longer side attached to the stick. Later on the banners became more square, and show on the top a long strip, generally of another colour, the Schwenkel (i.e. something that flourishes), waves to and fro. To bear a red Schwenkel was a special privilege, similar to the right of sealing with red wax.

"The ecclesiastical banner has three points, and is provided with rings on the top in order that it may be fastened to the stick by them, in an oblique position.

"The banner always represents the field of the shield, and assumes accordingly its tincture. The charges of the shield should be placed upon the banner without the outline of a shield, and the edge against the flag-staff is considered the dexter; it follows from this that the figure must be turned towards it.

"For instance, if the shield bear the following arms, argent an eagle gules, the same figure, suited to the size of the flag, appears on the banner, with its head turned towards the staff. If it be wished to represent only the colours of the arms upon the flag, that of the charge is placed above, and that of the field below. Thus, for example, the Prussian flag is black and white, corresponding to the black eagle on the silver field; the flag of Hohenzollern is white and black, corresponding to their coat of arms, quartered silver and black, because in the latter case, so soon as a heraldic representation is available, from the position of the coloured fields, the correct order of the tinctures is determined."

 

CHAPTER XXXI

MARKS OF CADENCY

The manner in which cadency is indicated in heraldic emblazonment forms one of the most important parts of British armory, but our own intricate and minutely detailed systems are a purely British development of armory. I do not intend by the foregoing remark to assert that the occasional use, or even, as in some cases, the constant use of altered arms for purposes of indicating cadency is unknown on the Continent, because different branches of one family are constantly found using, for the purposes of distinction, variations of the arms appertaining to the head of their house; in France especially the bordure has been extensively used, but the fact nevertheless remains that in no other countries is there found an organised system or set of rules for the purpose. Nor is this idea of the indication of cadency wholly a modern development, though some, in fact most, of the rules presently in force are no doubt a result of modern requirements, and do not date back to the earliest periods of heraldry in this country.

The obligation of cadet lines to difference their arms was recognised practically universally in the fourteenth century; and when, later, the systematic use of differencing seemed in danger of being ignored, it was made the subject of specific legislation. In the treatise of Zypœus, de Notitia juris Belgici, lib. xii., quoted also in Menetrier, Recherches du Blazon, p. 218, we find the following:—

"Ut secundo et ulterius geniti, quinimo primogeniti vivo patre, integra insignia non gerant, sed aliqua nota distincta, ut perpetuo linæ dignosci possint, et ex qua quique descendant, donec anteriores defecerint. Exceptis Luxenburgis et Gueldris, quibus non sunt ii mores." (The exception is curious.)

The choice of these brisures, as marks of difference are often termed, was, however, left to the persons concerned; and there is, consequently, a great variety of differences or differentiation marks which seem to have been used for the purpose. The term "brisure" is really French, whilst the German term for these marks is "Beizeichen."

British heraldry, on the contrary, is remarkable for its use of two distinct sets of rules—the English and the Scottish—the Irish system being identical with the former.

To understand the question of cadency it is necessary to revert to the status of a coat of arms in early periods. In the first chapter we dealt with the origin of armory; and in a subsequent chapter with the status of a coat of arms in Great Britain, and it will therefrom have been apparent that arms, and a right to them, developed in this country as an adjunct of, or contemporaneously with, the extension of the feudal system. Every landowner was at one time required to have his seal—presumably, of arms—and as a result arms were naturally then considered to possess something of a territorial character. I do not by this mean to say that the arms belonged to the land and were transferable with the sale and purchase thereof. There never was in this country a period at which such an idea held; nor were arms originally entirely personal or individual. They belonged rather to a position half-way between the two. They were the arms of a given family, originating because that family held land and accepted the consequent responsibilities thereto belonging, but the arms appertained for the time being to the member of that family who owned the land, and that this is the true idea of the former status of a coat of arms is perhaps best evidenced by the Grey and Hastings controversy, which engaged the attention of the Court of Chivalry for several years prior to 1410. The decision and judgment in the case gave the undifferenced arms of Hastings to the heir-general (Grey de Ruthyn), the heir-male (Sir Edward Hastings) being found only capable of bearing the arms of Hastings subject to some mark of difference.

This case, and the case of Scrope and Grosvenor, in which the king's award was that the bordure was not sufficient difference for a stranger in blood, being only the mark of a cadet, show clearly that the status of a coat of arms in early times was that in its undifferenced state it belonged to one person only for the time being, and that person the head of the family, though it should be noted that the term "Head of the Family" seems to have been interpreted into the one who held the lands of the family—whether he were heir-male or heir-general being apparently immaterial.

This much being recognised, it follows that some means were needed to be devised to differentiate the armorial bearings of the younger members of the family. Of course the earliest definite instances of any attempt at a systematic "differencing" for cadency which can be referred to are undoubtedly those cases presented by the arms of the younger members of the Royal Family in England. These cases, however, it is impossible to take as precedents. Royal Arms have always, from the very earliest times, been a law unto themselves, subject only to the will of the Sovereign, and it is neither safe nor correct to deduce precedents to be applied to the arms of subjects from proved instances concerning the Royal Arms.

Probably, apart from these, the earliest mark of cadency which is to be met with in heraldry is the label (Fig. 689) used to indicate the eldest son, and this mark of difference dates back far beyond any other regularised methods applicable to "younger" sons. The German name for the label is "Turnierkragen," i.e. Tournament Collar, which may indicate the origin of this curious figure. Probably the use of the label can be taken back to the middle or early part of the thirteenth century, but the opportunity and necessity of marking the arms of the heir-apparent temporarily, he having the expectation of eventually succeeding to the undifferenced arms, is a very different matter to the other opportunities for the use of marks of cadency. The lord and his heir were the two most important members of the family, and all others sunk their identity in their position in the household of their chief unless they were established by marriage, or otherwise, in lordships of their own, in which cases they are usually found to have preferred the arms of the family from whom they inherited the lordships they enjoyed; and their identities being to such a large extent overlooked, the necessity for any system of marking the arms of a younger son was not so early apparent as the necessity for marking the arms of the heir.