A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 3

However heraldry is looked upon, it must be admitted that from its earliest infancy armory possessed two essential qualities. It was the definite sign of hereditary n.o.bility and rank, and it was practically an integral part of warfare; but also from its earliest infancy it formed a means of decoration. It would be a rash statement to a.s.sert that armory has lost its actual military character even now, but it certainly possessed it undiminished so long as tournaments took place, for the armory of the tournament was of a much higher standard than the armory of the battlefield. Armory as an actual part of warfare existed as a means of decoration for the implements of warfare, and as such it certainly continues in some slight degree to the present day.

Armory in that bygone age, although it existed as the symbol of the lowest hereditary rank, was worn and used in warfare, for purposes of pageantry, for the indication of owners.h.i.+p, for decorative purposes, for the needs of authenticity in seals, and for the purposes of memorials in records, pedigrees, and monuments. All those uses and purposes of armory can be traced back to a period coeval with that to which our certain knowledge of the existence of armory runs. Of all those usages and purposes, one only, that of the use of armorial bearings in actual battle, can be said to have come to an end, and even that not entirely so; the rest are still with us in actual and extensive existence. I am not versed in the minutiae of army matters or army history, but I think I am correct in saying that there was no such thing as a regular standing army or a national army until the reign of Henry VIII. Prior to that time the methods of the feudal system supplied the wants of the country. The actual troops were in the employment, not of the Crown, but of the individual leaders. The Sovereign called upon, and had the right to call upon, those leaders to provide troops; but as those troops were not in the direct employment of the Crown, they wore the liveries and heraldic devices of their leaders. The leaders wore their own devices, originally for decorative reasons, and later that they might be distinguished by their particular followers: hence the actual use in battle in former days of private armorial bearings. And even yet the {25} practice is not wholly extinguished, for the tartans of the Gordon and Cameron Highlanders are a relic of the usages of these former days. With the formation of a standing army, and the direct service of the troops to the Crown, the liveries and badges of those who had formerly been responsible for the troops gave way to the liveries and badges of the Crown. The uniform of the Beefeaters is a good example of the method in which in the old days a servant wore the badge and livery of his lord. The Beefeaters wear the scarlet livery of the Sovereign, and wear the badge of the Sovereign still. Many people will tell you, by the way, that the uniform of a Beefeater is identical now with what it was in the days of Henry VIII. It isn't. In accordance with the strictest laws of armory, the badge, embroidered on the front and back of the tunic, has changed, and is now the triple badge--the rose, the thistle, and the shamrock--of the triple kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Every soldier who wears a scarlet coat, the livery of his Sovereign, every regiment that carries its colours, every saddle-cloth with a Royal emblem thereupon, is evidence that the use of armory in battle still exists in a small degree to the present day; but circ.u.mstances have altered. The troops no longer attack to the cry of "A Warwick! a Warwick!" they serve His Majesty the King and wear his livery and devices. They no longer carry the banner of their officer, whose servants and tenants they would formerly have been; the regiment cherishes instead the banner of the armorial bearings of His Majesty. Within the last few years, probably within the lifetime of all my readers, there has been striking evidence of the manner in which circ.u.mstances alter everything.

The Zulu War put an end to the practice of taking the colours of a regiment into battle; the South African War saw khaki subst.i.tuted universally for the scarlet livery of His Majesty; and to have found upon a South African battlefield the last remnant of the armorial practices of the days of chivalry, one would have needed, I am afraid, to examine the b.u.t.tons of the troopers. Still the scarlet coat exists in the army on parade: the Life Guards wear the Royal Cross of St. George and the Star of the Garter, the Scots Greys have the Royal Saltire of St. Andrew, and the Gordon Highlanders have the Gordon crest of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon; and there are many other similar instances.

There is yet another point. The band of a regiment is maintained by the officers of the regiment, and at the present day in the Scottish regiments the pipers have attached to their pipes banners bearing the various _personal_ armorial bearings of the officers of the regiment. So that perhaps one is justified in saying that the use of armorial bearings in warfare has not yet come to an end. The other ancient usages of armory exist now as they existed in the earliest times. So that it is {26} foolish to contend that armory has ceased to exist, save as an interesting survival of the past. It is a living reality, more _widely_ in use at the present day than ever before.

Certainly the military side of armory has sunk in importance till it is now utterly overshadowed by the decorative, but the fact that armory still exists as the sign and adjunct of hereditary rank utterly forbids one to a.s.sert that armory is dead, and though this side of armory is also now partly overshadowed by its decorative use, armory must be admitted to be still alive whilst its laws can still be altered. When, if ever, rank is finally swept away, and when the Crown ceases to grant arms, and people cease to use them, then armory will be dead, and can be treated as the study of a dead science. {27}

CHAPTER III

THE HERALDS AND OFFICERS OF ARMS

The crown is the Fountain of Honour, having supreme control of coat-armour.

This control in all civilised countries is one of the appanages of sovereignty, but from an early period much of the actual control has been delegated to the Heralds and Kings of Arms. The word Herald is derived from the Anglo-Saxon--_here_, an army, and _wald_, strength or sway--though it has probably come to us from the German word _Herold_.

In the last years of the twelfth century there appeared at festal gatherings persons mostly habited in richly coloured clothing, who delivered invitations to the guests, and, side by side with the stewards, superintended the festivities. Many of them were minstrels, who, after tournaments or battle, extolled the deeds of the victors. These individuals were known in Germany as _Garzune_.

Originally every powerful leader had his own herald, and the dual character of minstrel and messenger led the herald to recount the deeds of his master, and, as a natural consequence, of his master's ancestors. In token of their office they wore the coats of arms of the leaders they served; and the original status of a herald was that of a non-combatant messenger. When tournaments came into vogue it was natural that some one should examine the arms of those taking part, and from this the duties of the herald came to include a knowledge of coat-armour. As the Sovereign a.s.sumed or arrogated the control of arms, the right to grant arms, and the right of judgment in disputes concerning arms, it was but the natural result that the personal heralds of the Sovereign should be required to have a knowledge of the arms of his princ.i.p.al subjects, and should obtain something in the nature of a cognisance or control and jurisdiction over those arms; for doubtless the actions of the Sovereign would often depend upon the knowledge of his heralds.

The process of development in this country will be more easily understood when it is remembered that the Marshal or Earl Marshal was in former times, with the Lord High Constable, the first in _military_ rank under the King, who usually led his army in person, and to {28} the Marshal was deputed the ordering and arrangement of the various bodies of troops, regiments, bands of retainers, &c., which ordering was at first facilitated and at length entirely determined by the use of various pictorial ensigns, such as standards, banners, crests, cognisances, and badges. The due arrangement and knowledge of these various ensigns became first the necessary study and then the ordinary duty of these officers of the Marshal, and their possession of such knowledge, which soon in due course had to be written down and tabulated, secured to them an important part in mediaeval life. The result was that at an early period we find them employed in semi-diplomatic missions, such as carrying on negotiations between contending armies on the field, bearing declarations of war, challenges from one sovereign to another, besides arranging the ceremonial not only of battles and tournaments, but also of coronations, Royal baptisms, marriages, and funerals.

From the fact that neither King of Arms nor Herald is mentioned as officiating in the celebrated Scrope and Grosvenor case, of which very full particulars have come down to us, it is evident that the control of arms had not pa.s.sed either in fact or in theory from the Crown to the officers of arms at that date. Konrad Grunenberg, in his _Wappencodex_ ("Roll of Arms"), the date of which is 1483, gives a representation of a _helmschau_ (literally helmet-show), here reproduced (Fig. 12), which includes the figure of a herald. Long before that date, however, the position of a herald in England was well defined, for we find that on January 5, 1420, the King appointed William Bruges to be Garter King of Arms. It is usually considered in England that it would be found that in Germany armory reached its highest point of evolution. Certainly German heraldic art is in advance of our own, and it is curious to read in the latest and one of the best of German heraldic books that "from the very earliest times heraldry was carried to a higher degree of perfection and thoroughness in England than elsewhere, and that it has maintained itself at the same level until the present day. In other countries, for the most part, heralds no longer have any existence but in name." The initial figure which appears at the commencement of Chapter I. represents John Smert, Garter King of Arms, and is taken from the grant of arms issued by him to the Tallow Chandlers'

Company of London, which is dated September 24, 1456.

Long before there was any College of Arms, the Marshal, afterwards the Earl Marshal, had been appointed. The Earl Marshal is now head of the College of Arms, and to him has been delegated the whole of the control both of armory and of the College, with the exception of that part which the Crown has retained in its own hands. {29} After the Earl Marshal come the Kings of Arms, the Heralds of Arms, and the Pursuivants of Arms.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 12.--_Helmschau_ or Helmet-Show. (From Konrad Grunenberg's _Wappencodex zu Munchen_.) End of fifteenth century.]

The t.i.tle of King of Arms, or, as it was more anciently written, King of Heralds, was no doubt originally given to the chief or princ.i.p.al officer, who presided over the heralds of a kingdom, or some princ.i.p.al province, which heraldic writers formerly termed _marches_; or else the t.i.tle was conferred upon the officer of arms attendant upon some particular order of knighthood. Garter King of Arms, who is immediately attached to that ill.u.s.trious order, is likewise Princ.i.p.al King of Arms, and these, although separate and distinct offices, are and have been always united in one person. Upon the revival and new modelling of the Order of the Bath, in the reign of George the First, a King of Arms was created and attached to it, by the t.i.tle of Bath King of Arms; and King George III., upon the inst.i.tution of the Hanoverian Guelphic Order of Knighthood, annexed to that order a King of Arms, by the appellation of Hanover. At the time of the creation of his office, Bath King of Arms was given Wales as his province, the intention being that he should rank with the others, granting arms in his own province, but he was not, nor was Hanover, nor is the King of Arms of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, a member (as such) of the corporation of the College of Arms. The members of that corporation considered that the gift of the province of Wales, the jurisdiction over which they had previously possessed, to Bath King was an infringement of their chartered privileges. The dispute was referred to the law officers of the Crown, whose opinion was in favour of the corporate body.

Berry in his _Encyclopaedia Heraldica_ further remarks: "The Kings of Arms of the provincial territories have the t.i.tles of _Clarenceux_ and _Norroy_, the jurisdiction of the former extending over the south, east, and west parts of England, from the river Trent southwards; and that of the latter, the remaining part of the kingdom northward of that river. Kings of Arms have been likewise a.s.signed other provinces over different kingdoms and dominions, and besides Ulster King of Arms for Ireland, and Lyon King of Arms for Scotland, others were nominated for particular provinces abroad, when united to the Crown of England, such as _Aquitaine_, _Anjou_, and _Guyenne_, who were perhaps at their first creation intended only for the services of the places whose t.i.tles they bore, when the same should be entirely subdued to allegiance to the Crown of England, and who, till that time, might have had other provinces allotted to them, either provisionally or temporarily, within the realm of England.

There were also other Kings of Arms, denominated from the dukedoms or earldoms which our princes enjoyed before they came to the throne, as _Lancaster_, _Gloucester_, _Richmond_, and _Leicester_, the three first {30} having marches, or provinces, and the latter a similar jurisdiction.

Windsor, likewise, was a local t.i.tle, but it is doubtful whether that officer was ever a King of Arms. _Marche_ also a.s.sumed that appellation, from his provincial jurisdiction over a territory so called.

But although anciently there were at different periods several Kings of Arms in England, only two provincial Kings of Arms have, for some ages, been continued in office, viz. Clarenceux and Norroy, whose provinces or marches are, as before observed, separated by the river Trent, the ancient limits of the escheaters, when there are only two in the kingdom, and the jurisdiction of the wardens of the forests.

_Norroy_ is considered the most ancient t.i.tle, being the only one in England taken from the local situation of his province, unless _Marche_ should be derived from the same cause. The t.i.tle of _Norroy_ was anciently written _Norreys_ and _Norreis_, King of Arms of the people residing in the north; _Garter_ being styled _Roy des Anglois_, of the people, and not _d'Angleterre_, of the kingdom, the inhabitants of the north being called _Norreys_,[1] as we are informed by ancient historians.

It appears that there was a King of Arms for the parts or people on the north of Trent as early as the reign of Edward I., from which, as Sir Henry Spelman observes, it may be inferred that the southern, eastern, and western parts had princ.i.p.al heralds, or Kings of Arms, although their t.i.tles at that early age cannot now be ascertained.

_Norroy_ had not the t.i.tle of King till after the reign of Edward II. It was appropriated to a King of Heralds, expressly called _Rex Norroy_, _Roy d'Armes del North_, _Rex Armorum del North_, _Rex de North_, and _Rex Norroy du North_; and the term _Roy Norreys_ likewise occurs in the Pell Rolls of the 22nd Edward III.; but from that time till the 9th of Richard II. no farther mention is made of any such officer, from which it is probable a different person enjoyed the office by some other t.i.tle during that interval, particularly as the office was actually executed by other Kings of Arms, immediately after that period. _John Otharlake, Marche King of Arms_, executed it in the 9th of Richard II., Richard del Brugg, Lancaster King of Arms, 1st Henry IV., and _Ashwell_, _Boys_, and _Tindal_, successively _Lancaster Kings of Arms_, until the end of that monarch's reign.

Edward IV. replaced this province under a King of Arms, and revived the dormant t.i.tle of _Norroy_. But in the Statute of Resumptions, {31} made 1st Henry VII., a clause was inserted that the same should not extend to _John Moore_, otherwise _Norroy_, chief Herald King of Arms of the north parts of this realm of England, so appointed by King Edward IV. by his Letters Patent, bearing date 9th July, in the eighteenth year of his reign. It has since continued without interruption.

_Falcon King of Arms_ seems the next who had the t.i.tle of King conferred upon him, and was so named from one of the Royal badges of King Edward III., and it was afterwards given to a herald and pursuivant, under princes who bore the falcon as a badge or cognisance, and it is difficult to ascertain whether this officer was considered a king, herald, or pursuivant. _Froissart_ in 1395 calls _Faucon_ only a herald, and in 1364 mentions this officer as a King of Arms belonging to the King of England; but it is certain that in the 18th Richard II. there was a King of Arms by that appellation, and so continued until the reign of Richard III., if not later; but at what particular period of time the officer was discontinued cannot be correctly ascertained.

_Windsor_ has been considered by some writers to have been the t.i.tle of a King of Arms, from an abbreviation in some old records, which might be otherwise translated. There is, however, amongst the Protections in the Tower of London, one granted in the 49th Edward III. to _Stephen de Windesore, Heraldo Armorum rege dicto_, which seems to favour the conjecture, and other records might be quoted for and against this supposition, which might have arisen through mistake in the entries, as they contradict one another.

_Marche_ seems the next in point of antiquity of creation; but although Sir Henry Spelman says that King Edward IV. descended from the _Earls of Marche_, promoted _Marche Herald_ to be a King of Arms, giving him, perhaps, the marches for his province, it is pretty clearly ascertained that it was of a more early date, from the express mention of _March Rex Heraldorum_ and _March Rex Heraldus_ in records of the time of Richard II., though it may be possible that it was then only a nominal t.i.tle, and did not become a real one till the reign of Edward IV., as mentioned by Spelman.

_Lancaster King of Arms_ was, as the same author informs us, so created by Henry IV. in relation to his own descent from the Lancastrian family, and the county of Lancaster a.s.signed to him as his province; but _Edmondson_ contends "that that monarch superadded the t.i.tle of Lancaster to that of Norroy, or King of the North, having, as it may be reasonably conjectured, given this province north of Trent, within which district Lancaster was situated, to him who had been formerly his officer of arms, by the t.i.tle of that dukedom, and who might, according to custom, in some instances of former ages, retain his former t.i.tle and surname of heralds.h.i.+p, styling himself _Lancaster Roy d'Armes del North_." {32}

_Leicester King of Arms_ was a t.i.tle similar to that of _Lancaster_, and likewise a creation to the same Sovereign, Henry IV., who was also Earl of Leicester before he a.s.sumed the crown, and was given to a person who was before that time a herald. It appears that _Henry Grene_ was _Leicester Herald_, 9th King Richard II., and in the 13th of the same reign is called a _Herald of the Duke of Guyen and Lancaster_, but prior to the coronation of Henry IV. he was certainly a King of Heralds, and so styled in a privy seal dated antecedent to that ceremony. A similar instrument of the tenth year of that monarch's reign also mentions _Henry Grene_, otherwise _Leicester King of Arms_.

As it is evident that, during the reign of Henry IV., _Lancaster King of Arms_ has under that t.i.tle the province of the north, _Mr. Edmondson_, with good reason, supposes that the southern province, or part of that which is now under Clarenceux, might at that time be under this _Leicester_, especially as the t.i.tle of _Clarenceux_ was not in being till after the 3rd of Henry V., when, or soon after, the t.i.tle of _Leicester_ might have become extinct by the death of that officer; for although _Leicester King of Arms_ went over into France with Henry V. in the third year of his reign, yet he is not mentioned in the const.i.tutions made by the heralds at Roan in the year 1419-20.

_Clarenceux_, the next King of Arms in point of creation, is a t.i.tle generally supposed to have been taken from _Clare_, in Suffolk, the castle at that place being the princ.i.p.al residence of the ancient Earls of Hereford, who were, from thence, though very improperly, called _Earls of Clare_, in the same manner as the Earls of Pembroke were often named _Earls of Strigoil and Chepstow_; the Earl of Hamps.h.i.+re, _Earl of Winchester_; the Earl of Derby, _Earl of Tuttebury_; the Earl of Suss.e.x, _Earl of Chichester_, &c. King Edward III. created his third son Lionel _Duke of Clarence_, instead of the monosyllable _Clare_ (from his marriage with the grand-daughter of the late Earl), but Lionel dying without issue male, Henry IV. created his younger son Thomas _Duke of Clarence_, who being slain without issue 9th of Henry V., the honour remained in the Crown, until King Edward IV. conferred it upon his own brother. Mr. Sandford tells us that _Clarence_ is the country about the town, castle, and honour of _Clare_, from which duchy the name of _Clarenceux King of Arms_ is derived.

Spelman, however, contends that it is a mistake in attributing the inst.i.tution of _Clarenceux_ to King Edward IV. after the honour of _Clarence_ devolved as an escheat to the Crown upon the untimely death of his brother George, as he found William Horsely called by this t.i.tle in the reign of Henry V. and also Roger Lygh, under King Henry VI.; and it is conjectured that the office of _Clarenceux King of Arms_ is not more ancient than the reign of Edward III.

_Gloucester Herald_, frequently mentioned by historians, was originally {33} the herald of the great Humphry, Duke of Gloucester, of whom mention is made upon record in the 10th of Henry VI.; and Richard, brother to Edward IV., who was created Duke of Gloucester, is said to have had a herald by that t.i.tle during the reign of his brother, and who was attendant as such at the funeral of that monarch. In a ma.n.u.script in the Ashmolean collection, it is stated that Richard Champnay attended as Gloucester King of Arms at the coronation of Richard III. upon the 7th July following his usurpation of the crown; but it appears by more authentic record that this Richard Champnay was, by the style and t.i.tle of Herald of Arms, on the 18th September, in the first year of his usurpation, by patent created a King of Arms and Princ.i.p.al Herald of the parts of Wales, by the style and t.i.tle of Gloucester, giving him licence and authority to execute all and singular that by law or custom in former times belonged to the office of King of Arms. It is supposed that the office ceased upon his death, which in all probability took place before that of the usurper.

_Richmond King of Arms._--A herald called _Richmond_ is frequently mentioned, as well belonging to the Crown as of the n.o.bility. But the records of the reign of King Henry VII., who had before his elevation to the throne been Earl of Richmond, contain many entries of _Richmond King of Arms_; but although somewhat vague in the description, sufficiently bear out the conjecture that Henry VII., previous to his coronation, created a new King of Arms by the t.i.tle of _Richmond_, although no regular patent of creation has ever been found.

Sir Henry Spelman informs us that, in addition to the two Kings of Arms for the two Heraldic provinces bounded north and south by the river Trent, there were also two provincial kings for the dominions of our Sovereign in France, styled _Guyenne_ and _Agincourt_ (omitting _Aquitaine_ and _Anjou_, which were certainly in being at the same time), and another for _Ireland_ by that name, altered by King Edward VI. into _Ulster_.

_Ireland King of Arms_ first occurs upon record 6th Richard II., anno 1482, mentioned by _Froissart_, where he is called _Chandos le Roy d'Ireland_. A regular succession of officers, by the t.i.tle of Ireland King of Arms, continued from that time till the reign of King Edward IV., but from the death of that monarch till the creation of Ulster by Edward VI. it is uncertain whether the t.i.tle existed, or what became of the office.

Edward VI. altered the t.i.tle of Ireland King of Arms into that of Ulster, or rather considered it as a new inst.i.tution, from the words of his journal: "Feb. 2. There was a King of Arms made for Ireland, whose name was _Ulster_, and his province was all Ireland; and he was the fourth King of Arms, and the first Herald of Ireland." The patent pa.s.sed under the Great Seal of England.

Guyenne, a part of Aquitaine, in France, a province belonging to {34} the British Crown, gave t.i.tle not only to a King of Arms, but to a herald likewise, and Sir Henry Spelman dates its creation in the time of Edward I., although it is somewhat doubtful, and thought to be in the reign of Edward III. Guyenne Herald appears upon record during the reign of Henry VI., and though Kings of Arms were frequently styled heralds in old records, it is more than probable both offices were in existence at the same time. From the time of Edward IV. no such officers belonging to the Crown of England seem to have been continued, and it is doubtful whether they ever held in constant succession from their first creation.

_Aquitaine_, which included what were afterwards called Guyenne, Xantoigne, Gascoigne, and some islands, gave t.i.tle to a King of Heralds as early as the reign of Edward III., and it is conjectured to have been an officer belonging to the Black Prince, who had the princ.i.p.ality of Aquitaine given to him by his father; but although this officer is mentioned in the reign of Richard II. and 3rd of Henry V., no record occurs after the latter period.

_Agincourt_ was also a t.i.tle conferred upon a herald, in memory of that signal victory; and lands were granted to him for life, 6th Henry V., as mentioned by Sir Henry Spelman; but whether the office was continued, or any particular province a.s.signed to this officer, cannot be ascertained.

_Anjou King of Arms_ was likewise an officer of King Henry VI., and attendant upon John, Duke of Bedford, when Regent of France, who a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of Duke of Anjou. But upon the death of the Duke of Bedford, this officer was promoted to Lancaster King of Arms; and in all probability the t.i.tle of Anjou, as a King of Heralds, was discontinued.

_Volant_ also occurs upon record in the 28th Edward III., and _Vaillant_, _le Roy Vaillant Heraud_, and _le Roy Vailland_, are likewise mentioned in 1395.

Henry V. inst.i.tuted the office of Garter King of Arms; but at what particular period is rather uncertain, although Mr. Anstis has clearly proved that it must have taken place after the 22nd May, and before the 3rd September, in the year 1417.

Stephen Martin Leake, Esq., who filled the office, sums up its duties in the following words: "_Garter_ was inst.i.tuted by King Henry V., A.D. 1417, for the service of the Most n.o.ble Order of the Garter, which was made sovereign within the office of arms over all other officers, subject to the Crown of England, by the name of Garter King of Arms of England. In this patent he is styled Princ.i.p.al King of English Arms, and Princ.i.p.al Officer of Arms of the Most n.o.ble Order of the Garter, and has power to execute the said office by himself or deputy, being an herald. By the const.i.tution of his office, he must be a native of {35} England, and a gentleman bearing arms. To him belongs the correction of arms, and all ensigns of honour, usurped or borne unjustly, and also to grant arms to deserving persons, and supporters to the n.o.bility and Knights of the Bath; to go next before the sword in solemn proceeding, none interposing, except the constable and marshal; to administer the oath to all the officers of arms; to have a habit like the registrar of the order; baron's service in the court; lodgings in Windsor Castle; to bear his white rod with a banner of the ensigns of the order thereon before the Sovereign; also when any lord shall enter the Parliament chamber, to a.s.sign him his place, according to his dignity and degree; to carry the ensign of the order to foreign princes, and to do, or procure to be done, what the Sovereign shall enjoin, relating to the order; with other duties incident to his office of princ.i.p.al King of Arms, for the execution whereof he hath a salary of one hundred pounds a year, payable at the Exchequer, and an hundred pounds more out of the revenue of the order, besides fees."

_Bath King of Arms_ was created 11th George I., in conformity with the statutes established by His Majesty for the government of the Order of the Bath, and in obedience to those statutes was nominated and created by the Great Master of the Order denominated _Bath_, and in Latin, _Rex armorum Honoratissimi Ordinis Militaris de Balneo_. These statutes direct that this officer shall, in all the ceremonies of the order, be habited in a white mantle lined with red, having on the right shoulder the badge of the order, and under it a surcoat of white silk, lined and edged with red; that he shall wear on his breast, hanging to a golden chain about his neck, an escocheon of gold, enamelled with the arms of the order, impaling the arms of the Sovereign, crowned with the Imperial crown. That at all coronations he shall precede the companions of the order, and shall carry and wear his crown as other Kings of Arms are obliged to do. That the chain, escocheon, rod, and crown, shall be of the like materials, value, and weight, with those borne and used by Garter Princ.i.p.al King of Arms, and of the like fas.h.i.+on, the before specified variations only excepted: and that besides the duties required of him in the several other articles of the statutes, he shall diligently perform whatever the Sovereign or Great Master shall further command. On the 14th January 1725, His Majesty was further pleased by his Royal sign-manual, to erect, make, const.i.tute, and ordain the then Bath King of Arms, _Gloucester_ King of Arms, and princ.i.p.al Herald of the parts of Wales, and to direct letters patent to be made out and pa.s.s the Great Seal, empowering him to grant arms and crests to persons residing within the dominions of Wales, either jointly with Garter, or singly by himself, with the consent and at the pleasure of the Earl Marshal, or his deputy for the time being, and for {36} the future that the office of Gloucester should be inseparably annexed, united, and perpetually consolidated with the office of _Bath King of Arms, of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, and Gloucester King of Arms, and princ.i.p.al Herald of the parts of Wales_. And also that he, for the dignity of the order, should in all a.s.semblies and at all times have and take place and precedency above and before all other provincial Kings of Arms whatsoever."

This armorial jurisdiction, however, was subsequently, as has been previously explained, annulled.

Concerning the heralds Berry remarks: "In former ages, when honour and chivalry were at their height, these officers were held in great estimation, as appears by the ceremonies which attended their creations, which was by the Sovereign himself or by special commission from him, and, according to Gerard Leigh, was after the following manner: The King asked the person to be so created whether he were a gentleman of blood or of second coat-armour; if he was not, the King gave him lands and fees, and a.s.signed him and his heirs proper arms. Then, as the messenger was brought in by the herald of the province, so the pursuivant was brought in by the eldest herald, who, at the prince's command, performed all the ceremonies, as turning the coat of arms, setting the manacles thereof on the arms of the pursuivant, and putting about his neck the collar of SS, and when he was named, the prince himself took the cup from the herald, which was gilt, and poured the water and wine upon the head of the pursuivant, creating him by the name of _our herald_, and the King, when the oath was administered, gave the same cup to the new herald.

_Upton_ sums up the business of a herald thus: That it was their office to create under officers, to number the people, to commence treaties of matrimony and of peace between princes, to visit kingdoms and regions, and to be present at martial exploits, &c., and they were to wear a coat of their master's arms, wearing the same in conflicts and tournaments, in riding through foreign countries, and at all great entertainments, coronations of kings and queens, and the solemnities of princes, dukes, and other great lords.

In the time of King Richard II. there belonged to the King of Arms and heralds the following fees, viz.: at the coronation of the King, a bounty of 100; when the King first displayed his banners, 100 marks; when the King's son was made a knight, 40 marks; when the prince and a duke first display their banners, 20; if it be a marquis, 20 marks; if an earl, 10; if a baron, 5 marks of silver crowns, of 15 n.o.bles; and if a knight bachelor, newly made a banneret, 3 marks, or 10 n.o.bles; when the King is married, the said Kings of Arms and heralds to have 50; when the Queen has a child {37} christened, a largess at the Queen's pleasure, or of the lords of the council, which was sometimes 100, and at others 100 marks, more or less; and when she is churched, such another largess; when princesses, d.u.c.h.esses, marchionesses, countesses, and baronesses have a child christened, and when they are churched, a largess suitable to their quality and pleasure; as often as the King wears his crown, or holds Royal state, especially at the four great festivals of Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, and All Saints, to every one of the three Kings of Arms present when the King goes to the chapel to ma.s.s, a largess at the King's pleasure; when a maiden princess, or daughter of a duke, marquis, earl, or baron is married, there belongs to the said Kings of Arms, if present, the upper garment she is married in; if there be a combat within lists, there belong to the Kings of Arms, if present, and if not to the other heralds present, their pavilions; and if one of the combatants is vanquished, the Kings of Arms and heralds who are present shall have all the accoutrements of the person so vanquished, and all other armour that falls to the ground; when subjects rebel, and fortify any camp or place, and afterwards quit the same, and fly, without a battle, there appertain to the said Kings of Arms and heralds who are present all the carts, carriages, and tools left behind; and, at New Year's Tide, all the n.o.blemen and knights of the court used to give the heralds New Year's gifts. Besides the King's heralds, in former times, divers n.o.blemen had heralds and pursuivants, who went with their lords, with the King's heralds, when attending the King.

The fees of the King's heralds and pursuivants of arms have since varied, and, besides fees upon creations of peers, baronets, and knights, they have still donations for attendance at court upon the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, All Saints, and St. George's Day; fees upon installation of Knights of the Garter and Bath, Royal marriages, funerals, public solemnities, &c., with small salaries paid from the Exchequer; but their ancient fees from the n.o.bility, upon certain occasions, have been long discontinued, and their princ.i.p.al emolument arises from grants of arms, the tracing of genealogies, and recording the same in the Registers of the College of Arms."

The present _heralds_ are six in number, viz.:--