Table Of Content
A COMPLETE GUIDE
TO
HERALDRY
BY
ARTHUR CHARLES FOX-DAVIES
OF LINCOLN’S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW
AUTHOR OF “THE ART OF HERALDRY”
EDITOR OF “ARMORIAL FAMILIES,” ETC. ETC.
ILLUSTRATED BY NINE PLATES IN COLOUR AND NEARLY
800 OTHER DESIGNS, MAINLY FROM DRAWINGS BY
GRAHAM JOHNSTON
HERALD PAINTER TO THE LYON COURT
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I. THE ORIGIN OF ARMORY
II. THE STATUS AND THE MEANING OF A COAT OF ARMS IN
GREAT BRITAIN
III. THE HERALDS AND OFFICERS OF ARMS
IV. HERALDIC BRASSES
V. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF AN ACHIEVEMENT
VI. THE SHIELD
VII. THE FIELD OF A SHIELD AND THE HERALDIC TINCTURES
VIII. THE RULES OF BLAZON
IX. THE SO-CALLED ORDINARIES AND SUE-ORDINARIES
X. THE HUMAN FIGURE IN HERALDRY
XI. THE HERALDIC-LION
XII. BEASTS
XIII. MONSTERS
XIV. BIRDS
XV. FISH
XVI. REPTILES
XVII. INSECTS
XVIII. TREES, LEAVES, FRUITS, AND FLOWERS
XIX. INANIMATE OBJECTS
3
XX. THE HERALDIC HELMET
XXI. THE CREST
XXII. CROWNS AND CORONETS
XXIII. CREST CORONETS AND CHAPEAUX
XXIV. THE MANTLING OR LAMBREQUIN
XXV. THE TORSE OR WREATH
XXVI. SUPPORTERS
XXVII. THE COMPARTMENT
XXVIII. MOTTOES
XXIX. BADGES
XXX. HERALDIC FLAGS, BANNERS, AND STANDARDS
XXXI. MARKS OF CADENCY
XXXII. MARKS OF BASTARDY
XXXIII. THE MARSHALLING OF ARMS
XXXIV. THE ARMORIAL INSIGNIA OF KNIGHTHOOD
XXXV. THE ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF A LADY
XXXVI. OFFICIAL HERALDIC INSIGNIA
XXXVII. AUGMENTATIONS OF HONOUR
XXXVIII.ECCLESIASTICAL HERALDRY
XXXIX. ARMS OF DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY
XL. HATCHMENTS
XLI. THE UNION JACK
4
XLII. “SEIZE-QUARTIERS”
INDEX
5
INTRODUCTION
Too frequently it is the custom to regard the study of the science of Armory as
that of a subject which has passed beyond the limits of practical politics.
Heraldry has been termed “the shorthand of History,” but nevertheless the
study of that shorthand has been approached too often as if it were but the study
of a dead language. The result has been that too much faith has been placed in
the works of older writers, whose dicta have been accepted as both
unquestionably correct at the date they wrote, and, as a consequence, equally
binding at the present day.
Since the “Boke of St. Albans” was written, into the heraldic portion of
which the author managed to compress an unconscionable amount of rubbish,
books and treatises on the subject of Armory have issued from the press in a
constant succession. A few of them stand a head and shoulders above the
remainder. The said remainder have already sunk into oblivion. Such a book as
“Guillim” must of necessity rank in the forefront of any armorial bibliography;
but any one seeking to judge the Armory of the present day by the standards and
ethics adopted by that writer, would find himself making mistake after mistake,
and led hopelessly astray. There can be very little doubt that the “Display of
Heraldry” is an accurate representation of the laws of Armory which governed
the use of Arms at the date the book was written; and it correctly puts forward
the opinions which were then accepted concerning the past history of the
science.
There are two points, however, which must be borne in mind.
The first is that the critical desire for accuracy which fortunately seems to
have been the keynote of research during the nineteenth century, has produced
students of Armory whose investigations into facts have swept away the fables,
the myths, and the falsehood which had collected around the ancient science,
and which in their preposterous assertions had earned for Armory a ridicule, a
contempt, and a disbelief which the science itself, and moreover the active
practice of the science, had never at any time warranted or deserved. The
desire to gratify the vanity of illustrious patrons rendered the mythical
6
traditions attached to Armory more difficult to explode than in the cases of
those other sciences in which no one has a personal interest in upholding the
wrong; but a study of the scientific works of bygone days, and the comparison,
for example, of a sixteenth or seventeenth century medical book with a similar
work of the present day, will show that all scientific knowledge during past
centuries was a curious conglomeration of unquestionable fact, interwoven
with and partly obscured by a vast amount of false information, which now can
either be dismissed as utter rubbish or controverted and disproved on the score
of being plausible untruth. Consequently, Armory, no less than medicine,
theology, or jurisprudence, should not be lightly esteemed because our
predecessors knew less about the subject than is known at the present day, or
because they believed implicitly dogma and tradition which we ourselves
know to be and accept as exploded. Research and investigation constantly goes
on, and every day adds to our knowledge.
The second point, which perhaps is the most important, is the patent fact
that Heraldry and Armory are not a dead science, but are an actual living
reality. Armory may be a quaint survival of a time with different manners and
customs, and different ideas from our own, but the word “Finis” has not yet
been written to the science, which is still slowly developing and altering and
changing as it is suited to the altered manners and customs of the present day. I
doubt not that this view will be a startling one to many who look upon Armory
as indissolubly associated with parchments and writings already musty with
age. But so long as the Sovereign has the power to create a new order of
Knighthood, and attach thereto Heraldic insignia, so long as the Crown has the
power to create a new coronet, or to order a new ceremonial, so long as new
coats of arms are being called into being,—for so long is it idle to treat
Armory and Heraldry as a science incapable of further development, or as a
science which in recent periods has not altered in its laws.
The many mistaken ideas upon Armory, however, are not all due to the two
considerations which have been put forward. Many are due to the fact that the
hand-books of Armory professing to detail the laws of the science have not
always been written by those having complete knowledge of their subject.
7
Some statement appears in a textbook of Armory, it is copied into book after
book, and accepted by those who study Armory as being correct; whilst all the
time it is absolutely wrong, and has never been accepted or acted upon by the
Officers of Arms. One instance will illustrate my meaning. There is scarcely a
text-book of Armory which does not lay down the rule, that when a crest issues
from a coronet it must not be placed upon a wreath. Now there is no rule
whatever upon the subject; and instances are frequent, both in ancient and in
modern grants, in which coronets have been granted to be borne upon wreaths;
and the wreath should be inserted or omitted according to the original grant
of the crest. Consequently, the so-called rule must be expunged.
Another fruitful source of error is the effort which has frequently been made
to assimilate the laws of Armory prevailing in the three different kingdoms into
one single series of rules and regulations. Some writers have even gone so far
as to attempt to assimilate with our own the rules and regulations which hold
upon the Continent. As a matter of fact, many of the laws of Arms in England
and Scotland are radically different; and care needs to be taken to point out
these differences.
The truest way to ascertain the laws of Armory is by deduction from known
facts. Nevertheless, such a practice may lead one astray, for the number of
exceptions to any given rule in Armory is always great, and it is sometimes
difficult to tell what is the rule, and which are the exceptions. Moreover, the
Sovereign, as the fountain of honour, can over-ride any rule or law of Arms;
and many exceptional cases which have been governed by specific grants have
been accepted in times past as demonstrating the laws of Armory, when they
have been no more than instances of exceptional favour on the part of the
Crown.
In England no one is compelled to bear Arms unless he wishes; but, should
he desire to do so, the Inland Revenue requires a payment of one or two
guineas, according to the method of use. From this voluntary taxation the yearly
revenue exceeds £70,000, This affords pretty clear evidence that Armory is
still decidedly popular, and that its use and display are extensive; but at the
same time it would be foolish to suppose that the estimation in which Armory
8
is held, is equal to, or approaches, the romantic value which in former days
was attached to the inheritance of Arms. The result of this has been—and it is
not to be wondered at—that ancient examples are accepted and extolled
beyond what should be the case. It should be borne in mind that the very
ancient examples of Armory which have come down to us, may be examples of
the handicraft of ignorant individuals; and it is not safe to accept
unquestioningly laws of Arms which are deduced from Heraldic handicraft of
other days. Most of them are correct, because as a rule such handicraft was
done under supervision; but there is always the risk that it has not been; and
this risk should be borne in mind when estimating the value of any particular
example of Armory as proof or contradiction of any particular Armorial law.
There were “heraldic stationers” before the present day.
A somewhat similar consideration must govern the estimate of the Heraldic
art of a former day. To every action we are told there is a reaction; and the
reaction of the present day, admirable and commendable as it undoubtedly is,
which has taken the art of Armory back to the style in vogue in past centuries,
needs to be kept within intelligent bounds. That the freedom of design and
draughtsmanship of the old artists should be copied is desirable; but at the
same time there is not the slightest necessity to copy, and to deliberately copy,
the crudeness of execution which undoubtedly exists in much of the older work.
The revulsion from what has been aptly styled “the die-sinker school of
heraldry” has caused some artists to produce Heraldic drawings which (though
doubtless modelled upon ancient examples) are grotesque to the last degree,
and can be described in no other way.
In conclusion, I have to repeat my grateful acknowledgments to the many
individuals who assisted me in the preparation of my “Art of Heraldry,” upon
which this present volume is founded, and whose work I have again made use
of.
The very copious index herein is entirely the work of my professional
clerk, Mr. H. A. Kenward, for which I offer him my thanks. Only those who
have had actual experience know the tedious weariness of compiling such an
index.
9
A. C. FOX-DAVIES.
23 OLD BUILDINGS,
LINCOLN’S INN, W.C.
10
