63

EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN AND DATE OF THE HERALDIC TERM COATS OF ARMS.

By J. BIRKBECK NEVINS, M.D., LOND.

IN speaking of the royal Coats of Arms from the time of William the Conqueror, it is necessary to bear in mind that, in the strictly heraldic sense, the term "Coat of Arms" did not come into use until about the time of the Crusades, and that what will be hereafter spoken of as the Coats of Arms of William the Conqueror and his immediate successors, would more correctly be designated as the standards or banners which were used for the whole army engaged in a battle and indicated the king's position in the field.

But when the feudal system had become more or less universal in the European world, the great nobles, and the large landed tenants immediately under the king, owed him feudal service in the field, and there would, therefore, be several leaders all with their own followers engaged in the fight, and each independent of the other, though all engaged in the service of the one king. But these individual nobles or leaders would require a standard or flag by which they could be recognised by their own followers if they should happen to become separated during the battle. There would, therefore, be one banner-the king's for the entire army, and several standards or flags for the several feudal nobles serving under him.

ORIGIN OF COATS OF ARMS.

It is further to be borne in mind that, until the time of the Crusades approached, the leaders in the armies of Europe were not generally encased in coats of armour; but when this form of defence became customary it became necessary that some badge should be placed in a prominent part of the armour, so that its wearer might be recognised and assisted by his squires or other followers if he should become unhorsed or otherwise disabled during the fight, or during a joust, if it were in a tournament. The most prominent piece of armour would naturally be the shield, and the wearer's individual badge acquired the name of his Coat of Arms, to distinguish it from the "banner" of the king, which was for the whole army.

CRESTS.

But a further distinguishing mark became necessary at the same time; for as the visor was often dropped, the face of the knight was so hidden that neither his friends nor his opponents could recognise him in a melée, and a badge of some kind was therefore placed on the top of his helmet, and this acquired the name of a "crest," as distinguished from the arms borne upon his shield. It was not usual for a knight to have more than one Coat of Arms, but it was not uncommon for him to vary his crests, and there are numerous instances of two or even more crests being worn together, or separately under different circumstances, by the same bearer of the one Coat of Arms.

ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS HAVE COATS OF ARMS, BUT NOT CRESTS.

As the crest was a military badge, and its only use was to enable a combatant to be identified on the field of

even

battle or in a tournament, the archbishops and bishops did not require a crest, they being supposed to be noncombatants; and therefore they have no crests above their Coats of Arms in the British dominions. But this was not always the case in Germany; for some of the great ecclesiastics, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and others held their fiefs direct from the emperor, and as such were liable to feudal military service. Spener, the great German herald, says that in Germany, at any rate, universal custom is opposed to the omission of the crest, and ecclesiastics retained the full knightly insignia. On the other hand, in the southern kingdoms, clerics almost invariably replaced the helmet and crest by the ecclesias

tical hat.

SOMETIMES MORE THAN A SINGLE CREST IS WORN.

Our reigning king will be taken here as our first illustration of this fact. He has four crests, though we never see them represented at the same time, as he always wears the single crowned golden lion on his crown or helmet, as if it were his only one. But on referring to the illustration of George IV's Coat of Arms in Debrett's Peerages of Great Britain and Ireland (1828), plate I, following p. cxxxvi, we find the crown surmounted: 1st, by a crowned standing golden lion for England; 2nd, by a red lion sitting on its haunches, and holding in its fore-paws a sword and a sceptre, for Scotland; 3rd, by a white hart with branching horns leaping out of a castle or tower, for Ireland; and 4th, by a red dragon with erect wings, for Wales.

Under what circumstances George IV used these crests, or whether he ever did employ them, I have not been able

The origin of this crest seems to have been the Coat of Arms of Richard II, which he wore when on his expedition to Ireland, p. 76.

to learn; but his present majesty, King Edward VII, has desired the Prince of Wales to wear the crowned golden lion as his central crest, the Prince of Wales's plume of feathers as his dexter, or right hand badge, and the red dragon for Wales as his sinister, or left hand badge—all at the same time, which is a departure from previous custom for some centuries.

SUPPORTERS.

There were no Supporters (so called) attached to the Royal Coats of Arms until the time of Richard II, and when they did appear they were so little hereditary that they changed with almost every succeeding monarch, whether king or queen, until the time of Charles I.

They were sometimes used by private nobles and other persons previous to Richard's date; and in some instances they became eventually royal supporters. Thus, Henry VII adopted his private Tudor supporters as his royal ones, and Henry VIII at first retained his father's red dragon and greyhound, but eventually changed them for a golden lion and a dragon. Edward VI retained the dragon for one supporter, but adopted a unicorn for the other, which he took from the Arms of his mother, Lady Jane Seymour. Mary took as one of her supporters the Spanish eagle, which had belonged to her mother, Catharine of Arragon, though she retained the greyhound of her father. James I discarded the Tudor dragon and greyhound as his supporters, but adopted the lion, and introduced the unicorn. This had been a Scotch supporter from the time of James III of Scotland, that is nearly a hundred and fifty years before our James I succeeded to the English throne. The lion and the unicorn have been the English royal supporters ever since.

*These terms dexter (right) and sinister (left), when used in heraldry, always refer to the right and left hands of the wearer, not of the spectator.

MOTTOES.

Mottoes did not appear upon the banners of the kings or upon the Royal Coats of Arms until the time of Richard I, who adopted that of "Dieu et Mon Droit" under the following circumstances. Richard, after his return from the Crusades and his release from his imprisonment in Austria, was called upon by Philip Augustus, King of France, to do homage for his French possessions, which Philip asserted that Richard held simply as a feudal fief from him. Richard indignantly repudiated all such obligation, and declared that he would not render homage, but would submit the question to the ordeal of battle; and when this took place Richard took for his banner, "Dieu et mon Droit"-I fight for "God and my own right." He conquered in the battle of Gisors, 10th October, 1198, and the motto has been upon the Royal Coat of Arms to the present time.

The story of the origin of the other motto, "Honi soit qui mal y pense," is so well known as to require no repetition; but although it is almost universally present in the Royal Coats of Arms, and is popularly thought of as a royal motto, it is not so in reality, for it is merely the motto of the Order of the Garter, and every knight of that "most noble order" is entitled to wear it surrounding his Coat of Arms, and does so. It is therefore upon the English Royal Arms not as a royal motto, but because the King of England is the supreme Knight of that Order, and it is equally borne by the many foreign royal Monarchs who are Knights of the Garter, and by the closely limited number of eminent nobles, whether of British or foreign descent, who are also Knights of that Order.