CHAPTER XII

CADENCY

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

"Merke ye wele theys questionys here, now folowying!" —BOKE OF ST. ALBANS, A.D. 1486.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.)