The label does not appear to have been originally confined exclusively to the heir. It was at first the only method of differencing known, and it is not therefore to be wondered at that we find that it was frequently used by other cadets, who used it with no other meaning than to indicate that they were not the Head of the House. It has, consequently, in some few cases [for example, in the arms of Courtenay (Fig. 246), Babington, and Barrington] become stereotyped as a charge, and is continuously and unchangeably used as such, whereas doubtless it may have been no more originally than a mere mark of cadency. The label was originally drawn with its upper edge identical with the top of the shield (Fig. 520), but later its position on the shield was lowered. The number of points on the label was at first without meaning, a five-pointed label occurring in Fig. 690 and a seven-pointed one in Fig. 235.

In the Roll of Caerlaverock the label is repeatedly referred to. Of Sir Maurice de Berkeley it is expressly declared that

Sir Patrick Dunbar, son of the Earl of Lothian (i.e. of March), then bore arms similar to his father, with the addition of a label "azure." On the other hand, Sir John de Segrave is said to bear his deceased father's arms undifferenced, while his younger brother Nicholas carries them with a label "gules"; and in the case of Edmund de Hastings the label is also assigned to a younger brother. Further proof of its being thus borne by cadets is furnished by the evidence in the Grey and Hastings controversy in the reign of Henry IV., from which it appeared that the younger line of the Hastings family had for generations differenced the paternal coat by a label of three points; and, as various knights and esquires had deposed to this label being the cognisance of the nearest heir, it was argued that the defendant's ancestors would not have borne their arms in this way had they not been the reputed next heirs of the family of the Earl of Pembroke. The label will be seen in Figs. 690, 691, and 692, though its occurrence in the last case in each of the quarters is most unusual. The argent label on the arms for the Sovereignty of Man is a curious confirmation of the reservation of an argent label for Royalty.

William Ruthven, Provost of Perth, eldest son of the Master of Ruthven, bore a label of four points in 1503. Two other instances may be noticed of a label borne by a powerful younger brother. One is Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith, the fourth High Steward, in 1292; and we find the label again on the seal of his son Alexander Stewart, Earl of Menteith.

At Caerlaverock, Henry of Lancaster, brother and successor of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster—

i.e. he bore the Royal Arms, differenced by a bendlet "azure."

Jane Fentoun, daughter and heir-apparent of Walter Fentoun of Baikie, bore a label in 1448, and dropped it after her father's death. This is apparently an instance quite unique. I know of no other case where the label has been used by a woman as a mark of difference.

In France the label was the chief recognised mode of difference, though the bend and the bordure are frequently to be met with.

In Germany, Spener tells us that the use of the label, though occasional, was not infrequent: "Sicuti in Gallia vix alius discerniculorum modus frequentior est, ita rariora exempla reperimus in Germania," and he gives a few examples, though he is unable to assign the reason for its assumption as a hereditary bearing. The most usual method of differencing in Germany was by the alteration of the tinctures or by the alteration of the charges. As an example of the former method, the arms of the Bavarian family of Parteneck may be instanced (Figs. 693 to 697), all representing the arms of different branches of the same family.

Fig. 693.—Parteneck.

Fig. 694.—Cammer.

Fig. 695.—Cammerberg.

Fig. 696.—Hilgertshauser.

Fig. 697.—Massenhauser.

Next to the use of the label in British heraldry came the use of the bordure, and the latter as a mark of cadency can at any rate be traced back as a well-established matter of rule and precedent as far as the Scrope and Grosvenor controversy in the closing years of the fourteenth century.

At the period when the bordure as a difference is to be most frequently met with in English heraldry, it never had any more definite status or meaning than a sign that the bearer was not the head of the house, though one cannot but think that in many cases in which it occurs its significance is a doubt as to legitimate descent, or a doubt of the probability of an asserted descent. In modern English practice the bordure as a difference for cadets only continues to be used by those whose ancestors bore it in ancient times. Its other use as a modern mark of illegitimacy is dealt with in the chapter upon marks of illegitimacy, but the curious and unique Scottish system of cadency bordures will be presently referred to.

In Germany of old the use of the bordure as a difference does not appear to have been very frequent, but it is now used to distinguish the arms of the Crown Prince. In Italian heraldry, although differences are known, there is no system whatever. In Spain and Portugal marks of cadency, in our sense of the word, are almost unknown, but nevertheless the bordure, especially as indicating descent from a maternal ancestor, is very largely employed. The most familiar instance is afforded by the Royal Arms of Portugal, in which the arms of Portugal are surrounded by a "bordure" of Castile.

Differencing, however, had become a necessity at an earlier period than the period at which we find an approach to the systematic usage of the label, bordure, and bend, but it should be noticed that those who wished, and needed, to difference were those younger members of the family who by settlement, or marriage, had themselves become lords of other estates, and heads of distinct houses. For a man must be taken as a "Head of a House" for all intents and purposes as soon as by his possession of lands "held in chief" he became himself liable to the Crown to provide stated military service, and as a consequence found the necessity for a banner of arms, under which his men could be mustered. Now having these positions as overlords, the inducement was rather to set up arms for themselves than to pose merely as cadets of other families, and there can be no doubt whatever that at the earliest period, differencing, for the above reason, took the form of and was meant as a change in the arms. It was something quite beyond and apart from the mere condition of a right to recognised arms, with an indication thereupon that the bearer was not the person chiefly entitled to the display of that particular coat. We therefore find cadets bearing the arms of their house with the tincture changed, with subsidiary charges introduced, or with some similar radical alteration made. Such coats should properly be considered essentially different coats, merely indicating in their design a given relationship rather than as the same coat regularly differenced by rule to indicate cadency. For instance, the three original branches of the Conyers family bear: "Azure, a maunch ermine; azure, a maunch or; azure, a maunch ermine debruised by a bendlet gules." The coat differenced by the bend, of course, stands self-confessed as a differenced coat, but it is by no means certain, nor is it known whether "azure, a maunch ermine," or "azure, a maunch or" indicates the original Conyers arms, for the very simple reason that it is now impossible to definitely prove which branch supplies the true head of the family. It is known that a wicked uncle intervened, and usurped the estates to the detriment of the nephew and heir, but whether the uncle usurped the arms with the estates, or whether the heir changed his arms when settled on the other lands to which he migrated, there is now no means of ascertaining.

Similarly we find the Darcy arms ["Argent, three cinquefoils gules," which is probably the oldest form], "Argent, crusuly and three cinquefoils gules," and "Azure, crusuly and three cinquefoils argent," and countless instances can be referred to where, for the purpose of indicating cadency, the arms of a family were changed in this manner. This reason, of which there can be no doubt, supplies the origin and the excuse for the custom of assigning similar arms when the descent is but doubtful. Similarity originally, though it may indicate consanguinity, was never intended to be proof thereof.

The principal ancient methods of alteration in arms, which nowadays are apparently accepted as former modes of differencing merely to indicate cadency, may perhaps be classified into: (a) Change of tincture; (b) the addition of small charges to the field, or to an ordinary; (c) the addition of a label or (d) of a canton or quarter; (e) the addition of an inescutcheon; (f) the addition (or change) of an ordinary; (g) the changing of the lines of partition enclosing an ordinary, and perhaps also (h) diminishing the number of charges; (i) a change of some or all of the minor charges. At a later date came (j) the systematic use of the label, the bordure, and the bend; and subsequently (k) the use of the modern systems of "marks of cadency." Perhaps, also, one should include (l) the addition of quarterings, the use of (m) augmentations and official arms, and (n) the escutcheon en surtout, indicating a territorial and titular lordship, but the three last-mentioned, though useful for distinction and frequently obviating the necessity of other marks of cadency, did not originate with the theory or necessities of differencing, and are not properly marks of cadency. At the same time, the warning should be given that it is not safe always to presume cadency when a change of tincture or other slight deviation from an earlier form of the arms is met with. Many families when they exhibited their arms at the Visitations could not substantiate them, and the heralds, in confirming arms, frequently deliberately changed the tinctures of many coats they met with, to introduce distinction from other authorised arms.

Practically contemporarily with the use of the bordure came the use of the bend, then employed for the same purpose. In the Armorial de Gelre, one of the earliest armorials now in existence which can be referred to, the well-known coat of Abernethy is there differenced by the bendlet engrailed, and the arms of the King of Navarre bear his quartering of France differenced by a bendlet compony. Amongst other instances in which the bend or bendlet appears originally as a mark of cadency, but now as a charge, may be mentioned the arms of Fitzherbert, Fulton, Stewart (Earl of Galloway), and others. It is a safe presumption with regard to ancient coats of arms that any coat in which the field is semé is in nine cases out of ten a differenced coat for a junior cadet, as is also any coat in which a charge or ordinary is debruised by another. Of course in more modern times no such presumption is permissible. An instance of a semé field for cadency will be found in the case of the D'Arcy arms already mentioned. Little would be gained by a long list of instances of such differences, because the most careful and systematic investigations clearly show that in early times no definite rules whatever existed as to the assumption of differences, which largely depended upon the pleasure of the bearer, and no system can be deduced which can be used to decide that the appearance of any given difference or kind of difference meant a given set of circumstances. Nor can any system be deduced which has any value for the purposes of precedent.

Certain instances are appended which will indicate the style of differencing which was in vogue, but it should be distinctly remembered that the object was not to allocate the bearer of any particular coat of arms to any specific place in the family pedigree, but merely to show that he was not the head of the house, entitled to bear the undifferenced arms, if indeed it would not be more accurate to describe these instances as simply examples of different coats of arms used by members of the same family. For it should be remembered that anciently, before the days of "black and white" illustration, prominent change of tincture was admittedly a sufficient distinction between strangers in blood. Beyond the use of the label and the bordure there does not seem to have been any recognised system of differencing until at the earliest the fifteenth century—probably any regulated system does not date much beyond the commencement of the series of Visitations.

Of the four sons of Gilles De Mailly, who bore, "Or, three mallets vert," the second, third, and fourth sons respectively made the charges "gules," "azure," and "sable." The "argent" field of the Douglas coat was in some branches converted into "ermine" as early as 1373; and the descendants of the Douglases of Dalkeith made the chief "gules" instead of "azure." A similar mode of differencing occurs in the Lyon Register in many other families. The Murrays of Culbin in the North bore a "sable" field for their arms in lieu of the more usual "azure," and there seems reason to believe that the Southern Frasers originally bore their field "sable," the change to "azure" being an alteration made by those branches who migrated northwards. An interesting series of arms is met with in the case of the differences employed by the Earls of Warwick. Waleran, Earl of Warwick (d. 1204), appears to have added to the arms of Warenne (his mother's family) "a chevron ermine." His son Henry, Earl of Warwick (d. 1229), changed the chevron to a bend, but Thomas, Earl of Warwick (d. 1242), reverted to the chevron, a form which was perpetuated after the earldom had passed to the house of Beauchamp. An instance of the addition of mullets to the bend in the arms of Bohun is met with in the cadet line created Earls of Northampton.

The shield of William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln, who died in 1198, is adduced by Mr. Planché as an early example of differencing by crosses crosslet; the principal charges being seven mascles conjoined, three, three, and one. We find in the Rolls of Arms of the thirteenth and early part of the fourteenth century many instances of coats crusily, billetty, bezanty, and "pleyn d'escallops," fleurette, and "a les trefoiles d'or." With these last Sir Edmond Dacre of Westmoreland powdered the shield borne by the head of his family: "Gules, three escallops or" (Roll of Edward II.). The coat borne by the Actons of Aldenham, "Gules, crusily or, two lions passant argent," is sometimes quoted as a gerated coat of Lestrange; for Edward de Acton married the coheiress of Lestrange (living 1387), who bore simply: "Gules, two lions passant argent." That the arms of Acton are derived from Lestrange cannot be questioned, but the probability is that they were a new invention as a distinct coat, the charges suggested by Lestrange. The original coat of the House of Berkeley in England (Barclay in Scotland) appears to have been: "Gules, a chevron or" (or "argent"). The seals of Robert de Berkeley, who died 4 Henry III., and Maurice de Berkeley, who died 1281, all show the shield charged with a chevron only. Moris de Barkele, in the Roll temp. Henry III., bears: "Goules, a chevron argent."

But Thomas, son of Maurice, who died 15 Edward II., has the present coat: "Gules, a chevron between ten crosses patée argent;" while in the roll of Edward II., "De goules od les rosettes de argent et un chevron de argent" is attributed to Sir Thomas de Berkeley. In Leicestershire the Berkeleys gerated with cinquefoils, an ancient and favourite bearing in that county, derived of course from the arms or badge of the Earl of Leicester. In Scotland the Barclays differenced by change of tincture, and bore: "Azure, a chevron argent between (or in chief) three crosses patée of the same." An interesting series of differences is met with upon the arms of Neville of Raby, which are: "Gules, a saltire argent," and which were differenced by a crescent "sable"; a martlet "gules"; a mullet "sable" and a mullet "azure"; a "fleur-de-lis"; a rose "gules"; a pellet, or annulet, "sable," this being the difference of Lord Latimer; and two interlaced annulets "azure," all borne on the centre point of the saltire. The interlaced annulets were borne by Lord Montagu, as a second difference on the arms of his father, Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, he and his brother the King-maker both using the curious compony label of azure and argent borne by their father, which indicated their descent from John of Gaunt. One of the best known English examples of differencing by a change of charges is that of the coat of the Cobhams, "Gules, a chevron or," in which the ordinary was charged by various cadets with three pierced estoiles, three lions, three crossed crosslets, three "fleurs-de-lis," three crescents, and three martlets, all of "sable."

The original Grey coat ["Barry of six argent and azure"] is differenced in the Roll of Edward I. by a bend gules for John de Grey; at Caerlaverock this is engrailed.

The Segrave coat ["Sable, a lion rampant argent"] is differenced by the addition of "a bendlet or"; or "a bendlet gules"; and the last is again differenced by engrailing it.

In the Calais Roll the arms of William de Warren ["Chequy or and azure"] are differenced by the addition of a canton said to be that of Fitzalan (but really that of Nerford).

Whilst no regular system of differencing has survived in France, and whilst outside the Royal Family arms in that country show comparatively few examples of difference marks, the system as regards the French Royal Arms was well observed and approximated closely to our own. The Dauphin of France bore the Royal Arms undifferenced but never alone, they being always quartered with the sovereign arms of his personal sovereignty of Dauphiné: "Or, a dolphin embowed azure, finned gules." This has been more fully referred to on page 254. It is much to be regretted that the arms of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales do not include the arms of his sovereignty of the Duchy of Cornwall, nor any allusion to his dignities of Prince of Wales or Earl of Chester.

The arms of the Dukes of Orleans were the arms of France differenced by a label argent. This is to be observed, for example, upon the seal (Fig. 698) of the Duchess Charlotte Elizabeth of Orleans, widow of Philip of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV. of France. She was a daughter of the Elector Charles Louis. The arms of the old Dukes of Anjou were the ancient coat of France (azure, semé-de-lis or) differenced by a label of five points gules, but the younger house of Anjou bore the modern arms of France differenced by a bordure gules. The Dukes d'Alençon also used the bordure gules, but charged this with eight plates, whilst the Dukes de Berri used a bordure engrailed gules.

The Counts d'Angoulême used the arms of the Dukes of Orleans, adding a crescent gules on each point of the label, whilst the Counts d'Artois used France (ancient) differenced by a label gules, each point charged with three castles (towers) or.

The rules which govern the marks of cadency at present in England are as follows, and it should be carefully borne in mind that the Scottish system bears no relation whatever to the English system. The eldest son during the lifetime of his father differences his arms by a label of three points couped at the ends. This is placed in the centre chief point of the escutcheon. There is no rule as to its colour, which is left to the pleasure of the bearer; but it is usually decided as follows: (1) That it shall not be metal on metal, or colour on colour; (2) that it shall not be argent or white; and, if possible, that it shall differ from any colour or metal in which any component part of the shield is depicted. Though anciently the label was drawn throughout the shield, this does not now seem to be a method officially adopted. At any rate drawn throughout it apparently obtains no official countenance for the arms of subjects, though many of the best heraldic artists always so depict it. The eldest son bears this label during his father's lifetime, succeeding to the undifferenced shield on the death of his father. His children—being the grandchildren of the then head of the house—difference upon the label, but such difference marks are, like their father's, only contemporary with the life of the grandfather, and, immediately upon the succession of their father, the children remove the label, and difference upon the original arms. The use of arms by a junior grandson is so restricted in ordinary life that to all intents and purposes this may be ignored, except in the case of the heir-apparent of the heir-apparent, i.e. of the grandson in the lifetimes of his father and grandfather. In his case one label of five points is used, and to place a label upon a label is not correct when both are marks of cadency, and not charges. But the grandson on the death of his father, during the lifetime of the grandfather, and when the grandson succeeds as heir-apparent of the grandfather, succeeds also to the label of three points, which may therefore more properly be described as the difference mark of the heir-apparent than the difference mark of the eldest son. It is necessary, perhaps, having said this, to add the remark that heraldry knows no such thing as disinheritance, and heirship is an inalienable matter of blood descent, and not of worldly inheritance. No woman can ever be an heir-apparent. Though now the number of points on a label is a matter of rule, this is far from having been always the case, and prior to the Stuart period no deductions can be drawn with certainty from the number of the points in use. It seems a very great pity that no warrants were issued for the children of the then Duke of York during the lifetime of Queen Victoria, as labels for great-grandchildren would have been quite unique.

If the eldest son succeeds through the death of his mother to her arms and quarterings during his father's lifetime, he must be careful that the label which he bears as heir-apparent to his father's arms does not cross the quartering of his mother's arms.

If his father bears a quarterly shield, the label is so placed that it shall apparently debruise all his father's quarterings, i.e. in a shield quarterly of four the label would be placed in the centre chief point, the centre file of the label being upon the palar line, and the other files in the first and second quarters respectively, whilst the colour would usually depend, as has been above indicated, upon the tinctures of the pronominal arms. Due regard, however, must be had that a label of gules, for example, is not placed on a field of gules. A parti-coloured label is not nowadays permissible, though instances of its use can occasionally be met with in early examples. Supposing the field of the first quarter is argent, and that of the second azure, in all probability the best colour for the label would be gules, and indeed gules is the colour most frequently met with for use in this purpose.

If the father possess the quarterly coat of, say, four quarterings, which are debruised by a label by the heir-apparent, and the mother die, and the heir-apparent succeed to her arms, he would of course, after his father's death, arrange his mother's quarterings with these, placing his father's pronominal arms 1 and 4, the father's quartering in the second quarter, and the mother's arms in the third quarter. This arrangement, however, is not permissible during his father's lifetime, because otherwise his label in chief would be held to debruise all the four coats, and the only method in which such a combination could be properly displayed in the lifetime of the father but after the death of his mother is to place the father's arms in the grand quartering in the first and fourth quarters, each being debruised by the label, and the mother's in the grand quartering in the second and third quarters without any interference by the label.

The other marks of difference are: For the second son a crescent; for the third son a mullet; for the fourth son a martlet; for the fifth son an annulet; for the sixth son a fleur-de-lis; for the seventh son a rose; for the eighth son a cross moline; for the ninth son a double quatrefoil (Fig. 699).

Of these the first six are given in Bossewell's "Workes of Armorie" (1572), and the author adds: "If there be any more than six brethren the devise or assignment of further difference only appertaineth to the kingis of armes especially when they visite their severall provinces; and not to the father of the children to give them what difference he list, as some without authoritie doe allege."

The position for a mark of difference is in the centre chief point, though it is not incorrect (and many such instances will be found) for it to be charged on a chevron or fess, in the centre point. This, however, is not a very desirable position for it in a simple coat of arms. The second son of the second son places a crescent upon a crescent, the third son a mullet on a crescent, the fourth son a martlet on a crescent, and so on; and there is an instance in the Visitation of London in which the arms of Cokayne appear with three crescents one upon another: this instance has been already referred to on page 344. Of course, when the English system is carried to these lengths it becomes absurd, because the crescents charged one upon each other become so small as to be practically indistinguishable. There are, however, very few cases in which such a display would be correct—as will be presently explained. This difficulty, which looms large in theory, amounts to very little in the practical use of armory, but it nevertheless is the one outstanding objection to the English system of difference marks. It is constantly held up to derision by those people who are unaware of the next rule upon the subject, which is, that as soon as a quartering comes into the possession of a cadet branch—which quartering is not enjoyed by the head of the house—all necessity for any marks of difference at all is considered to be ended, provided that that quartering is always displayed—and that cadet branch then begins afresh from that generation to redifference.

Now there are few English families in whose pedigree during three or four generations one marriage is not with an heiress in blood, so that this theoretical difficulty very quickly disappears.

No doubt there is always an inducement to retain the quarterings of an historical or illustrious house which may have been brought in in the past, but if the honours and lands brought in with that quartering are wholly enjoyed by the head of the house, it becomes, from a practical point of view, mere affectation to prefer that quartering to another (brought in subsequently) of a family, the entire representation of which belongs to the junior branch and not to the senior. If the old idea of confining a shield to four quarters be borne in mind, concurrently with the necessity—for purposes of distinction—of introducing new quarterings, the new quarterings take the place of the old, the use of which is left to the senior branch. Under such circumstances, and the regular practice of them, the English system is seldom wanting, and it at once wipes out the difficulty which is made much of—that under the English system there is no way of indicating the difference between the arms of uncle and nephew. If the use of impalements is also adhered to, the difficulty practically vanishes.

To difference a single coat the mark of difference is placed in the centre chief point; to difference a quarterly coat of four quarters the same position on the shield is most generally used, the mark being placed over the palar line, though occasionally the difference mark is placed, and not incorrectly, in the centre of the quarterings. A coat of six quarters, however, is always differenced on the fess line of partition, the mark being placed in the fess point, because if placed in the centre chief point it would only appear as a difference upon the second quartering, so that on all shields of six or more quarterings the difference mark must be placed on some line of partition at the nearest possible point to the true centre fess point of the escutcheon. It is then understood to difference the whole of the quarterings over which it is displayed, but directly a quartering is introduced which has been inherited subsequently to the cadency which produced the difference mark, that difference mark must be either discarded or transferred to the first quartering only.

The use of these difference marks is optional. Neither officially nor unofficially is any attempt made to enforce their use in England—they are left to the pleasure and discretion of the bearers, though it is a well-understood and well-accepted position that, unless differenced by quarterings or impalement, it is neither courteous nor proper for a cadet to display the arms of the head of his house: beyond this, the matter is usually left to good taste.

There is, however, one position in which the use of difference marks is compulsory. If under a Royal Licence, or other exemplification—for instance, the creation of a peerage—a difference mark is painted upon the arms, or even if an exemplification of the arms differenced is placed at the head of an official record of pedigree, those arms would not subsequently be exemplified, or their use officially admitted, without the difference mark that has been recorded with them.

The differencing of crests for cadency is very rare. Theoretically, these should be marked equally with the shield, and when arms are exemplified officially under the circumstances above referred to, crest,

Fig. 700.—King John, before his accession to the throne. (From MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)	Fig. 701.—Edmund "Crouchback," Earl of Lancaster, second son of Henry III. (From his tomb.) His arms are elsewhere given: De goules ove trois leopardes passantz dor, et lambel dazure florete d'or.	Fig. 702.—Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, d. 1322 (son of preceding): England with a label azure, each point charged with three fleurs-de-lis. (From his seal, 1301.)
Fig. 703.—Henry of Lancaster, 1295-1324 (brother of preceding, before he succeeded his brother as Earl of Lancaster): England with a bend azure. (From his seal, 1301.) After 1324 he bore England with a label as his brother.	Fig. 704.—Henry, Duke of Lancaster, son of preceding. (From his seal, 1358.)	Fig. 705.—Edward of Carnarvon, Prince of Wales (afterwards Edward II.), bore before 1307: England with a label azure. (From his seal, 1305.)
Fig. 706.—John of Eltham (second son of Edward II.): England with a bordure of the arms of France. (From his tomb.)	Fig. 707.—Arms of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, 3rd son of Edward I.: England within a bordure argent. The same arms were borne by his descendant, Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent.	Fig. 708.—Arms of John de Holand, Duke of Exeter (d. 1400): England, a bordure of France. (From his seal, 1381.)

supporters, and shield are all equally differenced, but the difficulty of adding difference mark on difference mark when no marriage or heiress can ever bring in any alteration to the crest is very generally recognised and admitted, even officially, and it is rare indeed to come across a crest carrying more than a single difference mark.

The grant of an augmentation to any cadet obviates the slightest necessity for any further use of difference marks inherited before the grant.

There are no difference marks whatever for daughters, there being in English common law no seniority between the different daughters of one man. They succeed equally, whether heiresses or not, to the arms of their father for use during their lifetimes, and they must bear them on their own lozenges or impaled on the shields of their husbands, with the difference marks which their father needed to use. It would be permissible, however, to discard these difference marks of their fathers if subsequently to his death his issue succeeded to the position of head of the family. For instance, suppose the daughters of the younger son of an earl are under consideration. They would bear upon lozenges the arms of their father, which would be those of the earl, charged with the mullet or crescent which their father had used as a younger son. If by the extinction of issue the brother of these daughters succeed to the earldom, they would no longer be required to bear their father's difference mark.

There are no marks of difference between illegitimate children. In the eye of the law an illegitimate person has no relatives, and stands alone. Supposing it be subsequently found that a marriage ceremony had been illegal, the whole issue of that marriage becomes of course illegitimate. As such, no one of them is entitled to bear arms. A Royal Licence, and exemplification following thereupon, is necessary for each single one. Of these exemplifications there is one case on record in which I think nine follow each other on successive pages of one of the Grant Books: all differ in some way—usually in the colour of the bordure; but the fact that there are illegitimate brothers of the same parentage does not prevent the descendants of any daughter quartering the differenced coat exemplified to her. As far as heraldic law is concerned, she is the heiress of herself, representing only herself, and consequently her heir quarters her arms.

Marks of difference are never added to an exemplification following upon a Royal Licence after illegitimacy. Marks of difference are to indicate cadency, and there is no cadency vested in a person of illegitimate birth—their right to the arms proceeding only from the regrant of them in the exemplification. What is added in lieu is the mark of distinction to indicate the bastardy.

Fig. 709.—John de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal.)	Fig. 710.—Henry de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1455.)	Fig. 711.—Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, second son of Edward I.: Arms of England, a label of three points argent.
Fig. 712.—Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1400). (From a drawing of his seal, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii., f. 166.) Arms, see page 465.	Fig. 713.—John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1432): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his Garter plate.)	Fig. 714.—John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his seal.)
Fig. 715.—Edward the Black Prince: Quarterly, 1 and 4 France (ancient); 2 and 3 England, and a label of three points argent. (From his tomb.)	Fig. 716.—Richard, Prince of Wales (afterwards Richard II.), son of preceding: Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1377.)	Fig. 717.—Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of King Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, each point charged with three torteaux. (From his seal, 1391.) His son, Edward, Earl of Cambridge, until he succeeded his father, i.e. before 1462, bore the same with an additional difference of a bordure of Spain (Fig. 316). Vincent attributes to him, however, a label as Fig. 719, which possibly he bore after his father's death.

The method of differencing the English Royal Arms is quite unique, and has no relation to the method ordinarily in use in this country for the arms of subjects. The Royal Arms are not personal. They are the sovereign arms of dominion, indicating the sovereignty enjoyed by the person upon the throne. Consequently they are in no degree hereditary, and from the earliest times, certainly since the reign of Edward I., the right to bear the undifferenced arms has been confined exclusively to the sovereign upon the throne. In early times there were two methods employed, namely, the use of the bordure and of varieties of the label, the label of the heir-apparent to the English throne being originally of azure. The arms of Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward I., were differenced by a bordure argent; his elder brother, Thomas de Brotherton, having had a label of three points argent; whilst the eldest son, Edward II., as Prince of Wales used a label of three points azure. From that period to the end of the Tudor period the use of labels and bordures seems to have continued concurrently, some members of the Royal Family using one, some the other, though there does not appear to have been any precise rules governing a choice between the two. When Edward III. claimed the throne of France and quartered the arms of that country with those of England, of course a portion of the field then became azure, and a blue label upon a blue field was no longer possible. The heir-apparent therefore differenced his shield by the plain label of three points argent, and this has ever since, down to the present day, continued to be the "difference" used by the heir-apparent to the English throne. A label of gules upon the gules quartering of England was equally impossible, and consequently from that period all labels used by any member of the Royal Family have been argent, charged with different objects, these being frequently taken from the arms of some female ancestor. Figs. 700 to 730 are a somewhat extensive collection of variations of the Royal Arms.

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., bore: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, and on each point a canton gules.

The use of the bordure as a legitimate difference upon the Royal Arms ceased about the Tudor period, and differencing between members of the Royal Family is now exclusively done by means of these labels. A few cases of bordures to denote illegitimacy can, however, be found. The method of deciding these labels is for separate warrants under the hand and seal of the sovereign to be issued to the different members of the Royal Family, assigning to each a certain coronet, and the label to be borne over the Royal Arms, crest, and supporters. These warrants are personal to those for whom they are

Fig. 718.—Richard, Duke of York (son of Edward, Earl of Cambridge and Duke of York): Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1436.)	Fig. 719.—Referred to under Fig. 717.	Fig. 720.—Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, seventh son of Edward III.: France (ancient) and England quarterly, a bordure argent. (From a drawing of his seal, 1391, MS. Cott., Julius, C. vii.)
Fig. 721.—Henry of Monmouth, afterwards Henry V.: France (modern) and England quarterly, a label of three points argent. (From his seal.)	Fig. 722.—Richard, Duke of Gloucester (afterwards Richard III.): A label of three points ermine, on each point a canton gules.	Fig. 723.—Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, fourth son of Henry IV.: France (modern) and England quarterly, a bordure argent. (From his seal.)
Fig. 724.—John de Beaufort, Earl and Marquis of Somerset, son of John of Gaunt. Arms subsequent to his legitimation: France and England quarterly, within a bordure gobony azure and argent. Prior to his legitimation he bore: Per pale argent and azure (the livery colours of Lancaster), a bend of England (i.e. a bend gules charged with three lions passant guardant or) with a label of France.	Fig. 725.—Thomas, Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV. France and England quarterly, a label of three points ermine. (From his seal, 1413.)	Fig. 726.—George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV.: France and England quarterly, a label of three points argent, each charged with a canton gules. (From MS. Harl. 521.)

issued, and are not hereditary. Of late their use, or perhaps may be their issue, has not been quite so particularly conformed to as is desirable, and at the present time the official records show the arms of their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and the Queen of Norway, still bearing the label of five points indicative of their position as grandchildren of the sovereign, which of course they were when the warrants were issued in the lifetime of the late Queen Victoria. In spite of the fact that the warrants have no hereditary limitation, I am only aware of two modern instances in which a warrant has been issued to the son of a cadet of the Royal House who had previously received a warrant. One of these was the late Duke of Cambridge. The warrant was issued to him in his father's lifetime, and to the label previously assigned to his father a second label of three points gules, to be borne directly below the other, was added. The other case was that of his cousin, afterwards Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover. In his case the second label, also gules, was charged with the white horse of Hanover.

Fig. 727.—John, Duke of Bedford, third son of Henry IV.: France and England quarterly, a label of five points, the two dexter ermine, the three sinister azure, charged with three fleurs-de-lis or. (From MS. Add. 18,850.)

Fig. 728.—Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford: France and England quarterly, a bordure azure, charged with martlets or. (From his seal.) Although uncle of Henry VII., Jasper Tudor had no blood descent whatever which would entitle him to bear these arms. His use of them is very remarkable.

Fig. 729.—Thomas de Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, brother of John, Earl of Somerset (Fig. 724): France and England quarterly, a bordure compony ermine and azure. (From his Garter plate.)