Part 59 (1/2)
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 704.--Henry, Duke of Lancaster, son of preceding. (From his seal, 1358.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 705.--Edward of Carnarvon, Prince of Wales (afterwards Edward II.), bore before 1307: England with a label azure. (From his seal, 1305.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 706.--John of Eltham (second son of Edward II.): England with a bordure of the arms of France. (From his tomb.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 708.--Arms of John de Holand, Duke of Exeter (d. 1400): England, a bordure of France. (From his seal, 1381.)]
{492} supporters, and s.h.i.+eld 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 s.h.i.+elds 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 ent.i.tled 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 b.a.s.t.a.r.dy. {493}
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 709.--John de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding.
Arms as preceding. (From his seal.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 710.--Henry de Holand, Duke of Exeter, son of preceding. Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1455.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 711.--Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, second son of Edward I.: Arms of England, a label of three points argent.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 713.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1432): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his Garter plate.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 714.--John de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461): Arms as Fig. 711. (From his seal.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 716.--Richard, Prince of Wales (afterwards Richard II.), son of preceding: Arms as preceding. (From his seal, 1377.)]
[Ill.u.s.tration: 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.]
{494}