A Complete Guide to Heraldry Part 6

THE s.h.i.+ELD

The s.h.i.+eld is the most important part of the achievement, for on it are depicted the signs and emblems of the house to which it appertains; the difference marks expressive of the cadency of the members within that house; the augmentations of honour which the Sovereign has conferred; the quarterings inherited from families which are represented, and the impalements of marriage; and it is with the s.h.i.+eld princ.i.p.ally that the laws of armory are concerned, for everything else is dependent upon the s.h.i.+eld, and falls into comparative insignificance alongside of it.

Let us first consider the s.h.i.+eld itself, without reference to the charges it carries. A s.h.i.+eld may be depicted in any fas.h.i.+on and after any shape that the imagination can suggest, which shape and fas.h.i.+on have been accepted at any time as the shape and fas.h.i.+on of a s.h.i.+eld. There is no law upon the subject. The various shapes adopted in emblazonments in past ages, and used at the present time in imitation of past usage--for luckily the present period has evolved no special s.h.i.+eld of its own--are purely the result of artistic design, and have been determined at the periods they have been used in heraldic art by no other consideration than the particular theory of design that has happened to dominate the decoration, and the means and ends of such decoration of that period. The lozenge certainly is reserved for and indicative of the achievements of the female s.e.x, but, save for this one exception, the matter may be carried further, and arms be depicted upon a banner, a parallelogram, a square, a circle, or an oval; and even then one would be correct, for the purposes of armory, in describing such figures as s.h.i.+elds on all occasions on which they are made the vehicles for the emblazonment of a design which properly and originally should be borne upon a s.h.i.+eld. Let no one think that a design ceases to be a coat of arms if it is not displayed upon a s.h.i.+eld. Many people have thought to evade the authority of the Crown as the arbiter of coat-armour, and the penalties of taxation imposed by the Revenue by using designs without depicting them upon a s.h.i.+eld. This little deception has always been borne in mind, {61} for we find in the Royal Warrants of Queen Elizabeth commanding the Visitations that the King of Arms to whom the warrant was addressed was to "correcte, c.u.mptrolle and refourme all mann' of armes, crests, cognizaunces and devices unlawfull or unlawfully usurped, borne or taken by any p'son or p'sons within the same p'vince cont^ary to the due order of the laws of armes, and the same to rev'se, put downe or otherwise deface at his discrecon as well in coote armors, helmes, standerd, pennons and hatchmets of tents and pavilions, as also in plate jewells, pap', parchement, wyndowes, gravestones and monuments, or elsewhere wheresoev'

they be sett or placed, whether they be in shelde, schoocheon, lozenge, square, rundell or otherwise howsoev' cont^arie to the autentiq' and auncient lawes, customes, rules, privileges and orders of armes."

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 28.--Taken from the tomb of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou.]

The Act 32 & 33 Victoria, section 19, defines (for the purpose of the taxation it enforced) armorial bearings to mean and include "any armorial bearing, crest, or ensign, by whatever name the same shall be called, and whether such armorial bearing, crest, or ensign shall be registered in the College of Arms or not."

The shape of the s.h.i.+eld throughout the rest of Europe has also varied between wide extremes, and at no time has any one particular shape been a.s.signed to or peculiar to any country, rank, or condition, save possibly with one exception, namely, that the use of the cartouche or oval seems to have been very nearly universal with ecclesiastics in France, Spain, and Italy, though never reserved exclusively for their use. Probably this was an attempt on the part of the Church to get away from the military character of the s.h.i.+eld. It is in keeping with the rule by which, even at the present day, a bishop or a cardinal bears neither helmet nor crest, using in place thereof his ecclesiastical mitre or ta.s.selled hat, and by which the clergy, both abroad and in this country, seldom made use of a crest in depicting their arms. A clergyman in this country, however, has never been denied the right of using a crest (if he possesses one and chooses to display it) until he reaches episcopal rank. A grant of arms to a clergyman at the present day depicts his achievement with helmet, mantling, and crest in identical form with those adopted for any one else.

But the laws of armory, official and amateur, have always denied the right to make use of a crest to bishop, archbishop, and cardinal.

At the present day, if a grant of arms is made to a bishop of the Established Church, the emblazonment at the head of his patent consists of s.h.i.+eld and mitre only. The laws of the Church of England, however, require no vow of celibacy from its ecclesiastics, and consequently the descendants of a bishop would be placed in the position of having no crest to display if the bishop and his requirements were {62} alone considered. So that in the case of a grant to a bishop the crest is granted for his descendants in a separate clause, being depicted by itself in the body of the patent apart from the emblazonment "in the margin hereof," which in an ordinary patent is an emblazonment of the whole achievement. A similar method is usually adopted in cases in which the actual patentee is a woman, and where, by the limitations attached to the patent being extended beyond herself, males are brought in who will bear the arms granted to the patentee as their p.r.o.nominal arms. In these cases the arms of the patentee are depicted upon a lozenge at the head of the patent, the crest being depicted separately elsewhere.

Whilst s.h.i.+elds were actually used in warfare the utilitarian article largely governed the shape of the artistic representation, but after the fifteenth century the latter gradually left the beaten track of utility and pa.s.sed wholly into the cognisance of art and design. The earliest shape of all is the long, narrow shape, which is now but seldom seen. This was curved to protect the body, which it nearly covered, and an interesting example of this is to be found in the monumental slab of champleve enamel, part of the tomb of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou (Fig. 28), the ancestor of our own Royal dynasty of Plantagenet, who died in the year 1150. This tomb was formerly in the cathedral of Le Mans, and is now in the museum there. I shall have occasion again to refer to it. The s.h.i.+eld is blue; the lions are gold.

Other forms of the same period are found with curved tops, in the shape of an inverted pear, but the form known as the heater-shaped s.h.i.+eld is to all intents and purposes the earliest shape which was used for armorial purposes.

The church of St. Elizabeth at Marburg, in Hesse, affords examples of s.h.i.+elds which are exceedingly interesting, inasmuch as they are {63} original and contemporary even if only pageant s.h.i.+elds. Those which now remain are the s.h.i.+elds of the Landgrave Konrad (d. 1241) of Thuringia and of Henry of Thuringia (d. 1298). The s.h.i.+eld of the former (see Fig. 29) is 90 centimetres high and 74 wide. Konrad was Landgrave of Thuringia and Grand Master of the Teutonic Order of Knighthood. His arms show the lion of Thuringia barry of gules and argent on a field of azure, and between the hind feet a small s.h.i.+eld, with the arms of the Teutonic Order of Knights.

The only remains of the lion's mane are traces of the nails. The body of the lion is made of pressed leather, and the yellow claws have been supplied with a paint-brush. A precious stone probably represented the eye.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 29.--s.h.i.+eld of the Landgrave Konrad of Thuringia (died 1241).]

The making and decorating of the s.h.i.+elds lay mostly in the hands of the herald painters, known in Germany as _Schilter_, who, in addition to attending to the s.h.i.+eld and crest, also had charge of all the riding paraphernalia, because most of the articles comprised therein were {64} heraldically decorated. Many of these s.h.i.+eld-workers' fraternities won widespread fame for themselves, and enjoyed great consideration at that time.

Thus the "History of a Celebrated Painters' Guild on the Lower Rhine" tells us of costly s.h.i.+elds which the s.h.i.+eld-workers of Paris had supplied, 1260, &c. Vienna, too, was the home of a not unimportant s.h.i.+eld-workers' guild, and the town archives of Vienna contain writings of the fifteenth century treating of this subject. For instance, we learn that in an order of St.

Luke's parish, June 28, 1446, with regard to the masterpiece of a member of the guild--

"Item, a s.h.i.+eld-worker shall make four new pieces of work with his own hand, a jousting saddle, a leather ap.r.o.n, a horse's head-piece, and a jousting s.h.i.+eld, that shall he do in eight weeks, and must be able to paint it with his own hand, as Knight and man-at-arms shall direct."

The s.h.i.+eld was of wood, covered with linen or leather, the charges in relief and painted. Leather plastic was very much esteemed in the early Middle Ages. The leather was soaked in oil, and pressed or beaten into shape. Besides piecing and leather plastic, pressed linen (linen dipped in chalk and lime) was also used, and a kind of tempera painting on a chalk background. After the s.h.i.+eld was decorated with the charges, it was frequently strengthened with metal clasps, or studs, particularly those parts which were more especially exposed to blows and pressure. These clasps and nails originally had no other object than to make the s.h.i.+eld stronger and more durable, but later on their nature was misunderstood; they were treated and used as genuine heraldic charges, and stereotyped into hereditary designs. The long strips with which the edge was bound were called the "frame" (_Schildgestell_), the clasps introduced in the middle of the s.h.i.+eld the "buckle" or "umbo" (see on Fig. 28), from which frequently circularly arranged metal snaps reached the edge of the s.h.i.+eld.

This latter method of strengthening the s.h.i.+eld was called the "Buckelris,"

a figure which was afterwards frequently employed as a heraldic charge, and is known in Germany by the name of _Lilienhaspel_ (Lily-staple) or _Glevenrad_, or, as we term it in England, the escarbuncle.

In the second half of the fourteenth century, when the tournament provided the chief occasion for the s.h.i.+eld, the jousting-s.h.i.+eld, called in Germany the _Tartsche_ or _Tartscher_, came into use, and from this cla.s.s of s.h.i.+eld the most varied shapes were gradually developed. These _Tartschen_ were decidedly smaller than the earlier Gothic s.h.i.+elds, being only about one-fifth of a man's height. They were concave, and had on the side of the knight's right hand a circular indentation. This was the spear-rest, in which to place the tilting-spear. The later {65} art of heraldic decoration symmetrically repeated the spear-rest on the sinister side of the s.h.i.+eld, and, by so doing, transformed a useful fact into a matter of mere artistic design. Doubtless it was argued that if indentations were correct at one point in the outline they were correct at another, and when once the actual fact was departed from the imagination of designers knew no limits. But if the spear-rest as such is introduced into the outline of a s.h.i.+eld it should be on the dexter side.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 30.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 31.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 32.]

Reverting to the various shapes of s.h.i.+eld, however, the degeneration is explained by a remark of Mr. G. W. Eve in the able book which he has recently published under the t.i.tle of "Decorative Heraldry," in which, alluding to heraldic art in general, he says (p. 235):--

"With the Restoration heraldry naturally became again conspicuous, with the worst form of the Renaissance character in full sway, the last vestiges of the Gothic having disappeared. Indeed, the contempt with which the superseded style was regarded amounted to fanaticism, and explains, in a measure, how so much of good could be relinquished in favour of so weak a successor."

Later came the era of gilded embellishments, of flowing palms, of borders decorated with grinning heads, festoons of ribbon, and fruit and flowers in abundance. The accompanying examples are reproduced from a book, Knight and Rumley's "Heraldry." The book is not particularly well known to the public, inasmuch as its circulation was entirely confined to heraldic artists, coach-painters, engravers, and die-sinkers. Amongst these handicraftsmen its reputation was and is great. With the school of design it adopted, little or no sympathy now exists, but a short time ago (how short many of those who are now vigorous advocates of the Gothic and mediaeval styles would be startled to realise were they to recognise actual facts) no other style was known or considered by the public. As examples of that style the plates of Knight and Rumley were admittedly far in advance of any other book, and as specimens of copperplate engraving they are superb. Figs. 30, 31, and 32 show typical examples of escutcheons from Knight and Rumley; and as the volume was in the hands of most of the heraldic handicraftsmen, it will be found that this type of design was constantly to be met with. The external decoration of the s.h.i.+eld was carried to great lengths, and Fig. 31 found many admirers and users amongst the gallant "sea-dogs" of the kingdom. In fact, so far was the idea carried that a trophy of military weapons was actually granted by patent as part of the supporters of the Earl of Bantry. Fig. 30, from the same source, is the military equivalent.

These plates are interesting as being some of the examples from which most of the heraldic handicraft of a recent period was adapted. The {66} official s.h.i.+eld eventually stereotyped itself into a shape akin to that shown in Fig. 32, though nowadays considerable lat.i.tude is permitted. For paintings which are not upon patents the design of the s.h.i.+eld rests with the individual taste of the different officers of arms, and recently some of the work for which they have been responsible has reached a high standard judged even by the strictest canons of art. In Scotland, until very recently, the actual workmans.h.i.+p of the emblazonments which were issued from Lyon Office was so wretchedly poor that one is hardly justified in taking them into consideration as a type. With the advent into office of the present Lyon King of Arms (Sir James Balfour Paul), a complete change has been made, and both the workmans.h.i.+p and design of the paintings upon the patents of grant and matriculation, and also in the Lyon Register, have been examples of everything that could be desired. {67}

CHAPTER VII

THE FIELD OF A s.h.i.+ELD AND THE HERALDIC TINCTURES

The s.h.i.+eld itself and its importance in armory is due to its being the vehicle whereon are elaborated the pictured emblems and designs which const.i.tute coat-armour. It should be borne in mind that theoretically all s.h.i.+elds are of equal value, saving that a s.h.i.+eld of more ancient date is more estimable than one of recent origin, and the s.h.i.+eld of the head of the house takes precedence of the same arms when differenced for a younger member of the family. A s.h.i.+eld crowded with quarterings is interesting inasmuch as each quartering in the ordinary event means the representation through a female of some other family or branch thereof. But the real value of such a s.h.i.+eld should be judged rather by the age of the single quartering which represents the strict male descent male upon male, and a simple coat of arms without quarterings may be a great deal more ancient and ill.u.s.trious than a s.h.i.+eld crowded with coat upon coat. A fict.i.tious and far too great estimation is placed upon the right to display a long string of quarterings. In reality quarterings are no more than accidents, because they are only inherited when the wife happens to be an heiress in blood. It is quite conceivable that there may be families, in fact there are such families, who are able to begin their pedigrees at the time of the Conquest, and who have married a long succession of n.o.ble women, all of the highest birth, but yet none of whom have happened to be heiresses.

Consequently the arms, though dating from the earliest period at which arms are known, would remain in their simple form without the addition of a solitary quartering. On the other hand, I have a case in mind of a marriage which took place some years ago. The husband is the son of an alien whose original position, if report speaks truly, was that of a pauper immigrant.

His wealth and other attributes have placed him in a good social position; but he has no arms, and, as far as the world is aware, no ancestry whatever. Let us now consider his wife's family. Starting soon after the Conquest, its descendants obtained high position and married heiress after heiress, and before the commencement of this century had ama.s.sed a s.h.i.+eld of quarterings which can readily be proved to be little short of a hundred in number. Probably the number {68} is really much greater. A large family followed in one generation, and one of the younger sons is the ancestor of the aforesaid wife. But the father of this lady never had any sons, and though there are many males of the name to carry on the family in the senior line and also in several younger branches, the wife, by the absence of brothers, happens to be a coheir; and as such she transmits to her issue the right to all the quarterings she has inherited. If the husband ever obtains a grant of arms, the date of them will be subsequent to the present time; but supposing such a grant to be obtained, the children will inevitably inherit the scores of quarterings which belong to their mother.

Now it would be ridiculous to suppose that such a s.h.i.+eld is better or such a descent more enviable than the s.h.i.+eld of a family such as I first described. Quarterings are all very well in their way, but their glorification has been carried too far.

A s.h.i.+eld which displays an augmentation is of necessity more honourable than one without. At the same time no scale of precedence has ever been laid down below the rank of esquires; and if such precedence does really exist at all, it can only be according to the date of the grant. Here in England the possession of arms carries with it no style or t.i.tle, and nothing in his designation can differentiate the position of Mr. Scrope of Danby, the male descendant of one of the oldest families in this country, whose arms were upheld in the Scrope and Grosvenor controversy in 1390, or Mr. Daubeney of Cote, from a Mr. Smith, whose known history may have commenced at the Foundling Hospital twenty years ago. In this respect English usage stands apart, for whilst a German is "Von" and a Frenchman was "De," if of n.o.ble birth, there is no such apparent distinction in England, and never has been. The result has been that the technical n.o.bility attaching to the possession of arms is overlooked in this country.

On the Continent it is usual for a patent creating a t.i.tle to contain a grant of the arms, because it is recognised that the two are inseparable.

This is not now the case in England, where the grant of arms is one thing and the grant of the t.i.tle another, and where it is possible, as in the case of Lord St. Leonards, to possess a peerage without ever having obtained the first step in rank, which is n.o.bility or gentility.

The foregoing is in explanation of the fact that except in the matter of date all s.h.i.+elds are equal in value.

So much being understood, it is possible to put that consideration on one side, and speaking from the artistically technical point of view, the remark one often hears becomes correct, that the simpler a coat of arms the better. The remark has added truth from the fact that most ancient coats of arms were simple, and many modern coats are far from being worthy of such a description. {69}

A coat of arms must consist of at least one thing, to wit, the "field."

This is equivalent in ordinary words to the colour of the ground of the s.h.i.+eld. A great many writers have a.s.serted that every coat of arms must consist of at least the field, and a charge, though most have mentioned as a solitary exception the arms of Brittany, which were simply "ermine." A plain s.h.i.+eld of ermine (Fig. 33) was borne by John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond (d. 1399), though some of his predecessors had relegated the arms of Brittany to a "quarter ermine" upon more elaborate escutcheons (Fig.

61). This idea as to arms of one tincture was, however, exploded in Woodward and Burnett's "Treatise on Heraldry," where no less than forty different examples are quoted. The above-mentioned writer continues: "There is another use of a plain red s.h.i.+eld which must not be omitted. In the full quartered coat of some high sovereign princes of Germany--Saxony (duchies), Brandenburg (Prussia), Bavaria, Anhalt--appears a plain red quartering; this is known as the _Blut Fahne_ or _Regalien_ quarter, and is indicative of Royal prerogatives. It usually occupies the base of the s.h.i.+eld, and is often diapered."

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 33.--Arms of John (de Montfort, otherwise de Bretagne), Duke of Brittany and Earl of Richmond. (From his seal.)]

But in spite of the lengthy list which is quoted in Woodward and Burnett, the fact remains that only one British instance is included. The family of Berington of Chester (on the authority of Harleian ma.n.u.script No. 1535) is said to bear a plain s.h.i.+eld of azure. Personally I doubt this coat of arms for the Berington family of Chester, which is probably connected with the neighbouring family in Shrops.h.i.+re, who in later times certainly used very different arms. The plain s.h.i.+eld of ermine is sometimes to be found as a quartering for Brittany in the achievement of those English families who have the right to quarter the Royal arms; but I know of no other British case in which, either as a quartering or as a p.r.o.nominal coat, arms of one tincture exist.

But there are many coats which have no charge, the distinctive device consisting of the part.i.tion of the s.h.i.+eld in some recognised heraldic method into two or more divisions of different tinctures. Amongst such coats may be mentioned the arms of Waldegrave, which are simply: Party per pale argent and gules; Drummond of Megginch, whose arms are simply: Party per fess wavy or and gules; and the arms of Boyle, which are: Per bend embattled argent and gules. The arms of Berners--which are: Quarterly or and vert--are another example, as are the arms of Campbell (the first quarter in the Duke of Argyll's achievement), which are: Gyronny or and sable. {70}

The coat bendy argent and gules, the ancient arms of Talbot, which are still borne as a quartering by the Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Talbot; and the coat chequy or and azure, a quartering for Warren, which is still borne by the House of Howard, all come within the same category.

There are many other coats of this character which have no actual charge upon them.

The colour of the s.h.i.+eld is termed the field when it consists of only one colour, and when it consists of more than one colour the two together compose the field. The field is usually of one or more of the recognised metals, colours, or furs.

The metals are gold and silver, these being termed "or" and "argent." The colours, which are really the "tinctures," if this word is to be used correctly, are: gules (red), azure (blue), vert (green), purpure (purple), and (in spite of the fact that it is not really a colour) black, which is known as sable.

The metal gold, otherwise "or," is often represented in emblazonments by yellow: as a matter of fact yellow has always been used for gold in the Register Books of the College of Arms, and Lyon Office has recently reverted to this practice. In ancient paintings and emblazonments the use of yellow was rather more frequent than the use of gold, but gold at all times had its use, and was never discarded. Gold seems to have been usually used upon ancient patents, whilst yellow was used in the registrations of them retained in the Offices of Arms, but I know of no instance in British armory in which the word yellow has been used in a blazon to represent any tint distinct from gold. With regard to the other metal, silver, or, as it is always termed, "argent," the same variation is found in the usage of silver and white in representing argent that we find in yellow and gold, though we find that the use of the actual metal (silver) in emblazonment does not occur to anything like the same extent as does the use of gold.

Probably this is due to the practical difficulty that no one has yet discovered a silver medium which does not lose its colour. The use of aluminium was thought to have solved the difficulty, but even this loses its brilliancy, and probably its usage will never be universally adopted.

This is a pity, for the use of gold in emblazonments gives a brilliancy in effect to a collection of coat-armour which it is a pity cannot be extended by an equivalent usage of silver. The use of silver upon the patents at the College of Arms has been discontinued some centuries, though aluminium is still in use in Lyon Office. Argent is therefore usually represented either by leaving the surface untouched, or by the use of Chinese white.

I believe I am the first heraldic writer to a.s.sert the existence of the heraldic colour of white in addition to the heraldic argent. Years ago {71} I came across the statement that a white label belonged only to the Royal Family, and could be used by no one else. I am sorry to say that though I have searched high and low I cannot find the authority for the statement, nor can I learn from any officer of arms that the existence of such a rule is a.s.serted; but there is this curious confirmation that in the warrants by which the various labels are a.s.signed to the different members of the Royal Family, the labels are called white labels. Now the label of the Prince of Wales is of three points and is plain. Heraldry knows nothing of the black lines which in drawing a coat of arms usually appear for the outline of a charge. In older work such lines are absent. In any case they are only mere accidents of draughtsmans.h.i.+p. Bearing this in mind, and bearing in mind that the sinister supporter of the Prince of Wales is a unicorn argent, how on earth is a plain label of argent to be depicted thereupon? Now it is necessary also that the label shall be placed upon the crest, which is a lion statant guardant or, crowned with the coronet of the Prince, and upon the dexter supporter which is another golden lion; to place an argent label upon either is a flat violation of the rule which requires that metal shall not be placed upon metal, nor colour upon colour; but if the unicorn is considered argent, which it is, it would if really depicted in silver be quite possible to paint a white label upon it, for the distinction between white and silver is marked, and a white label upon a gold lion is not metal upon metal. Quite recently a still further and startling confirmation has come under my notice. In the grant of a crest to Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, the coronet which is to encircle the neck of the leopard is distinctly blazoned argent, the label to which he is previously said to have had a just hereditary right is as distinctly blazoned white, and the whole grant is so short that inadvertence could hardly be pleaded as an explanation for the distinction in blazon. Instances of an official exemplification of coats of arms with labels are not uncommon, because the label in some number of families, for example Courtenay and Prideaux-Brune and Barrington, has become stereotyped into a charge. In none of these cases, however, is it either argent or white, but instances of the exemplification of a coat of arms bearing a label as a mark of cadency are, outside the members of the Royal Family, distinctly rare; they are necessarily so, because outside the Royal Family the label is merely the temporary mark of the eldest son or grandson during the lifetime of the head of the house, and the necessity for the exemplification of the arms of an eldest son can seldom occur. The one circ.u.mstance which might provide us with the opportunity is the exemplification consequent upon a change of name and arms by an eldest son during the lifetime of his father; but {72} this very circ.u.mstance fails to provide it, because the exemplification only follows a change of arms, and the arms being changed, there no longer exists the necessity for a mark of cadency; so that instances of the official use of a label for cadency are rare, but of such as occur I can learn of none which has received official sanction which blazons the label white. There is, however, one coat which is said to have a label argent as a charge, this is the coat of Fitz-Simon, which is quoted in Papworth, upon the authority of one of the Harleian Ma.n.u.scripts, as follows: Sable, three crescents, in chief a label of two drops and in fess another of one drop argent; and the same coat of arms is recorded in a funeral entry in Ulster's Office. The label is not here termed white, and it is peculiar that we find it of another colour in another coat of Fitz-Simon (azure, a lion rampant ermine, a label of four point gules).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 34.--Armorial bearings of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (d. 1311): Or, a lion rampant purpure. (From his seal.)]

Of other colours may be mentioned purpure (purple). This in English heraldry is a perfectly well recognised colour, and though its use is extremely rare in comparison with the others, it will be found too frequently for it to be cla.s.sed as an exception. The earliest instance of this tincture which I have met with is in the coat of De Lacy (Fig. 34).

The Roll of Caerlaverock speaks of his

"Baniere ot de un cendall saffrin, O un lion rampant porprin,"