A Complete Guide to Heraldry

by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies

Though this statement would give a good general idea of the Scottish practice, its publication entails the addition of certain qualifying remarks. Supporters are most certainly not "commonly inserted in modern patents of peerage." Supporters appertaining to peerages are granted by special and separate patents. These to English subjects

are now under the hand and seal of Garter alone. In the event of a grant following upon the creation of an Irish peerage, the patent of supporters would be issued by Ulster King of Arms. But it is competent to Lyon King of Arms to matriculate the arms of Scottish peers with supporters, or to grant these to such as may still be without them. Both Lyon and Ulster would appear to have the right to grant supporters to Peers of the United Kingdom who are heraldically their domiciled subjects. With regard to the second paragraph of Mr. Tait's memorandum, there will be few families within its range who will not be included within the range of the paragraph which follows, and the presumption would rather be that the use of supporters by an untitled family originated in the right of barony than in any mythical grant following upon mythical feats of valour.

Mr. Tait, however, is clearly wrong in his statement that "no females (except peeresses in their own right) are entitled to supporters." They have constantly been allowed to the heir of line, and their devolution through female heirs must of necessity presuppose the right thereto of the female heir through whom the inheritance is claimed. A recent case in point occurs with regard to the arms of Hunter-Weston, matriculated in 1880, Mrs. Hunter-Weston being the heir of line of Hunter of Hunterston. Widows of peers, providing they have arms of their own to impale with those of their husbands, cannot be said to only bear the supporters of their deceased husbands by courtesy. With them it is a matter of right. The eldest sons of peers bearing courtesy titles most certainly do not bear the supporters of the peerage to which they are heirs. Even the far more generally accepted "courtesy" practice of bearing coronets is expressly forbidden by an Earl-Marshal's Warrant.

Consequently it may be asserted that the laws concerning the use of supporters in Scotland are as follows: In the first place, no supporters can be borne of right unless they have been the subject of formal grant or matriculation. The following classes are entitled to obtain, upon payment of the necessary fees, the grant or matriculation of supporters to themselves, or to themselves and their descendants according as the case may be: (1) Peers of Scotland, and other peers who are domiciled Scotsmen. (2) Knights of the Garter, Knights of the Thistle, and Knights of St. Patrick, being Scotsmen, are entitled as such to obtain grants of supporters to themselves for use during life, but as these three orders are now confined to members of the peerage, the supporters used would be probably those appertaining to their peerages, and it is unlikely that any further grants for life will be made under these circumstances. (3) Knights of the Bath until the revision of the order were entitled to obtain grants of supporters to themselves for

use during their lifetimes, and there are many instances in the Lyon Register where such grants have been made. (4) Knights Grand Cross of the Bath, of St. Michael and St. George, and of the Royal Victorian Order, and Knights Grand Commanders of the Orders of the Star of India, and of the Indian Empire, are entitled to obtain grants of supporters for use during their lifetimes. (5) The lawful heirs of the minor barons who had the full right of free barony prior to 1587 may matriculate supporters if they can show their ancestors used them, or may now obtain grants. Though practically the whole of these have been at some time or other matriculated in Lyon Register, there still remain a few whose claims have never been officially adjudicated upon. For example, it is only quite recently that the ancient Swinton supporters have been formally enrolled on the official records (Plate IV.). (6) There are certain others, being chiefs of clans and the heirs of those to whom grants have been made in times past, who also have the right, but as no new claim is likely to be so recognised in the future, it may be taken that these are confined to those cases which have been already entered in the Lyon Register.

During the latter part of the eighteenth century, the executive of Lyon Office had fallen into great disrepute. The office of Lyon King of Arms had been granted to the Earls of Kinnoul, who had contented themselves with appointing deputies and drawing fees. The whole subject of armorial jurisdiction in Scotland had become lax to the last degree, and very many irregularities had crept in. One, and probably the worst result, had been the granting of supporters in many cases where no valid reason other than the payment of fees could be put forward to warrant the obtaining of such a privilege. And the result was the growth and acceptance of the fixed idea that it was within the power of Lyon King of Arms to grant supporters to any one whom he might choose to so favour. Consequently many grants of supporters were placed upon the records, and many untitled families of Scotland apparently have the right under these patents of grant to add supporters to their arms. Though it is an arguable matter whether the Lord Lyon was justified in making these grants, there can be no doubt that, so long as they remain upon the official register, and no official steps are taken to cancel the patents, they must be accepted as existing by legal right. Probably the most egregious instance of such a grant is to be found in the case of the grant to the first baronet of the family of Antrobus, who on purchasing the estate of Rutherford, the seat of the extinct Lords Rutherford, obtained from the then Lyon King of Arms a grant of the peerage supporters carried by the previous owners of the property.

With regard to the devolution of Scottish supporters, the large

proportion of those registered in Lyon Office are recorded in the terms of some patent which specifies the limitations of their descent, so that there are a comparatively small number only concerning which there can be any uncertainty as to whom the supporters will descend to. The difficulty can only arise in those cases in which the arms are matriculated with supporters as borne by ancient usage in the early years of the Lyon Register, or in the cases of supporters still to be matriculated on the same grounds by those families who have so far failed to comply with the Act of 1672. Whilst Mr. Tait, in his memorandum which has been previously quoted, would deny the right of inheritance to female heirs, there is no doubt whatever that in many cases such heirs have been allowed to succeed to the supporters of their families. Taking supporters as an appanage of right of barony (either greater or lesser), there can be no doubt that the greater baronies, and consequently the supporters attached to them, devolved upon heirs female, and upon the heir of line inheriting through a female ancestor; and, presumably, the same considerations must of necessity hold good with regard to those supporters which are borne by right of lesser barony, for the greater and the lesser were the same thing, differing only in degree, until in the year 1587 the lesser barons were relieved of compulsory attendance in Parliament. At the same time there can be no doubt that the headship of a family must rest with the heir male, and consequently it would seem that in those cases in which the supporters are borne by right of being head of a clan or chief of a name, the right of inheritance would devolve upon the heir male. There must of necessity be some cases in which it is impossible to determine whether the supporters were originally called into being by right of barony or because of chieftainship, and the consequence has been that concerning the descent of the supporters of the older untitled families there has been no uniformity in the practice of Lyon Office, and it is impossible from the precedents which exist to deduce any certain and unalterable rule upon the point. Precedents exist in each case, and the well-known case of Smith-Cunningham and Dick-Cunningham, which is often referred to as settling the point, did nothing of the kind, inasmuch as that judgment depended upon the interpretation of a specific Act of Parliament, and was not the determination of a point of heraldic law. The case, however, afforded the opportunity to Lord Jeffrey to make the following remarks upon the point (see p. 355, Seton):—

"If I may be permitted to take a common-sense view, I should say that there is neither an inflexible rule nor a uniform practice in the matter. There may be cases where the heir of line will exclude the heir male, and there may be cases where the converse will be held. In

my opinion the common-sense rule is that the chief armorial dignities should follow the more substantial rights and dignities of the family. If the heir male succeed to the title and estates, I think it reasonable that he should also succeed to the armorial bearings of the head of the house. I would think it a very difficult proposition to establish that the heir of line, when denuded of everything else, was still entitled to retain the barren honours of heraldry. But I give no opinion upon that point."