HERALDRY IN CONNECTION WITH HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE,
INTERIOR DECORATION, COSTUME, AMUSEMENT,
RELIGIOUS SOLEMNITIES, FUNERAL RITES, ETC.
In the preface to this Manual, we stated that Heraldry
might be considered as the symbolic history of the
nobility of Britain, from the Conquest to the reign of
Elizabeth. It would require a volume of far greater
pretensions than this to enter fully upon the heraldic
history of the peerage; but the assertion may be borne
out by merely glancing at the supporters of the shields
containing the arms of the British monarchs during that
period.
Supporters were not introduced in English heraldry
previous to the reign of Richard II. The shield of this
luxurious monarch is supported on each side by an angel
habited, and beneath the shield by a white hart couchant,
gorged and chained or, beneath a tree. The
shield of Henry IV., the founder of the Lancastrian
dynasty, was supported on the dexter side by a swan,
on the sinister side by an antelope, both gorged and
lined or. The shield of the gallant Henry V. was
supported on the dexter side by a lion rampant guardant,
crowned or; on the sinister side by an antelope,
gorged and chained. Henry VI. had two antelopes as
supporters to his achievement. The shield of the
gallant Yorkist Edward IV. is supported on the dexter
side by a lion rampant argent, the tail passed between his
legs, and turned over his back; on the sinister by a white hart, and in some instances by a bull. The supporters
of the shield of Richard III. were two boars rampant
argent, tusked and bristled or. Henry VII., as a
descendant of the Welch prince Cadwallader, assumed
the red dragon as the supporter of the dexter side of
his shield; the sinister was supported by a greyhound
argent, collared gules. The shield of Henry VIII.
was supported on the dexter side by a lion guardant,
crowned or; on the sinister by a dragon gules. Edward
VI. had the same supporters. Mary on her
marriage with Philip of Spain, empaled the arms of
Spain and England as baron and femme; the dexter
side of the shield was supported by the imperial
eagle, the sinister by a lion rampant, crowned or.
Queen Elizabeth rescued England from this degradation;
the crowned lion rampant of England resumed
his place as the supporter of the dexter side of the
shield, and the red dragon on the sinister. On the
union of England with Scotland, the supporters of the
royal arms were, on the dexter side a lion guardant,
crowned or, on the sinister maned and unguled or,
white unicorn, gorged and chained of the same. The
supporters of the royal arms have continued the same
to the present time; and, as an emblem of union and
strength, long may they continue.
The reader may easily read the vicissitudes and
changes of dynasty in the great change of these emblems
of support and dignity during the period of time
that elapsed from the reign of Richard II. to James I.;
and even the brief notice here given would enable
the reader to determine the date of any building if the
royal arms and supporters were placed within it.
Heraldry had taken too firm a hold of the minds of
the higher classes of society to escape the notice of the
architects who were engaged by the sovereigns of England
and by the wealthy barons, to erect those splendid
ecclesiastical edifices that still exist as the architectural
gems of Britain. Westminster Abbey teems with
heraldic ornament, not only in the gorgeous chapel of
Henry VII., but in those parts of the structure erected
at a much earlier period. During the time when those
styles of Gothic architecture prevailed that are now
called the decorated and the perpendicular, the roof,
the columns, the stained glass windows, the seats, altar,
tombs, and even the flooring, were filled with emblazonment.
A branch of art which our forefathers found
so useful as an ornament to architecture cannot be
beneath the notice of those who are desirous of treading
in their footsteps.
Nor was heraldic ornament confined to architecture.
It formed the grand embellishment of the interior of
the palaces and baronial castles,
"The gorgeous halls which were on every side,
With rich array and costly arras dight."
The canopies of state, the furniture and plate, were all
emblazoned with the arms of the royal and noble
owners. And even at the present day, heraldry is far
more effective for interior decoration than the unmeaning
Italian scroll-work that is substituted for it. Some
idea of the value of both may be formed by glancing at
the interior decoration of the new Royal Exchange;
and it is to be regretted that the shields containing the
arms of the different countries should not have occupied
the walls, as an indication of the spot where the natives
of those countries might be found; and that the compartments
of the ceiling, if such ornament should be
found in a building of this kind at all, should not be
filled with the Italian floral scroll decoration.
In a preceding chapter of this Manual, the reader has
been informed that the arms of a knight were emblazoned
on the surcoat or outer garment that was worn
over his armor, which was the origin of the term
Coat of Arms. Heraldic emblazonment was plentifully
strewed over the mantles of the nobility when they
assembled on state solemnities. Nor was this ornament
confined to the garments of males. Ladies delighted to
appear in the cognizances of their lords, or in their
own paternal bearings. Armorists that have amused
themselves by treating on the curious and obsolete
terms of heraldry, have supposed that the flanch and
flasque represent that part of female attire which covered
the body from the lower part of the neck to the waist, and
that this part of the ladies' dress contained the heraldic
bearing. Our contracted space will not allow our indulging
in fanciful research, nor would it benefit our
readers if we did so. Suffice it that we have ample
proof that heraldry formed the decoration of female
attire.
Numerous instances may be found, either in stained
glass, monumental brasses, or illuminated genealogies,
of female figures bearing heraldic devices on their
apparel. A married lady or widow had her paternal
arms emblazoned upon the fore part of her vest, which
by ancient writers is called the kirtle, and the arms of
the husband on the mantle, being the outer and the
most costly garment, and therefore deemed the most honorable. This is called bearing arms kirtle and
mantle.
Our frontispiece contains two figures kneeling, taken
from Dallaway's Heraldry. They are to be found in
an illuminated pedigree of the Weston family. The
male figure is that of Sir John de Weston, of Weston-Lizars,
in Staffordshire, and Isabel his wife, whose
paternal name was Bromley. In three quarterfoils
beneath the figures are shields: the first contains the
arms of Weston, sable, an eagle displayed or, with a
lable argent, fretty gules; the center shield is argent,
fretty gules; that under the lady is her paternal arms,
quarterly per fess dancette, or and gules. The figure
of the knight is represented in chain armor, over
which is a surcoat, on which his arms are emblazoned.
The vest or kirtle of the lady is formed entirely of
the colors of her arms disposed quarterly, and parted
horizontally, or fessways, by the line dancette. As both
the knight and his lady appear together, each bears
their own arms; but if either had been drawn separately,
the arms of both would have appeared on one person;
if on the male, they would have been empaled baron
and femme upon the surcoat; if on the female, they
would have appeared on kirtle and mantle. This lady
is drawn with a kirtle only.
In some of the later monumental brasses, the arms
on female figures are arranged differently; the arms of
the baron appearing on the outside of the mantle, hanging
over the dexter shoulder, the paternal arms of the
femme on the lining of the mantle turned outwards on
the sinister side of the figure.
The reader will find, by referring to the word
TOURNAMENT in the Dictionary, that Heraldry formed
the great embellishment of that animated and costly
amusement: and that the attainment of heraldic honors
was the only means of gaining permission to join in it,
and by this means only was a passport obtained to high
society. These honors, which cost some trouble in
gaining, could be lost by misconduct. Arms were
forfeited for uncourteous demeanor, disregard of
authority, falsehood, oppression, and ungentlemanly
conduct; and there can be little doubt but, in a semi-barbarous
age, when prowess in the field of battle was considered the highest
accomplishment, that the dread
of a blot on the escutcheon, or a reversal of the shield
of arms, restrained many a proud baron in his tyrannical
proceedings to those beneath him, and tended to keep
down the insolence of the upstart favorites of royalty.
Heraldry tended to soften and polish the manners, and,
by the introduction of the manufacture of silken housings
tapestry, and carpeting, to increase the comforts
and pleasures of society, and compelled those who were
anxious to exhibit the insignia of gentility, to seek
distinction by other means than rapine and violence.
The term Canting Heraldry frequently occurs in
ancient and modern authors. It is a term of contempt
and derision, applied to symbolic bearings that are
assumed without the authority of the Heralds' College.
In many cases they allude to the name or occupation
of the bearer: the motto is probably a pun upon the
figures contained in the shield, or some technical expression
used by the parties in their agricultural or
commercial pursuits.
No person, when heraldry was in its greatest repute,
dared assume any cognizance or bearing without permission
of the Earl Marshal or the Kings-at-Arms.
Any individuals, who presumed, by assumption, to
offend the laws of the court of honor, were liable to
heavy fines and personal duresse, which in many instances
have been rigidly enforced.
Origin of Coat of Arms
