"Thinks the lozenge is formed of the shield called Tessera or Tessela, which the Romans, finding unfit for use, did allow to women to place their ensigns upon, with one of its angles always upmost."
Though unable at this moment to furnish examples in proof of my opinion, I must say that it is contrary to the one expressed by your correspondent Ceyrep, that "formerly all ladies of rank" bore their arms upon a complete shield, or bore shields upon their seals. The two instances cited by him are rather unfortunate, the connexion of both ladies with royalty being sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of their right to the "full and complete" shield.
Margaret, Duchess (not Countess) of Norfolk, was sole heir of her father, Thomas of Brotherton, fifth Earl of Norfolk, son of King Edward I., and Marshal of England. She, "for the greatness of her birth, her large revenues and wealth," was created Duchess of Norfolk for life; and at the coronation of King Richard II. she exhibited her petition "to be accepted to the office of High Marshal," which was, I believe, granted. In such case, setting aside her royal descent, I apprehend that, by virtue of her office, she would not bear her arms in a lozenge. She bore the arms of England with only a label for difference.
Margaret, Countess of Richmond, was herself royally descended, being great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III.; was daughter-in-law of Henry V.'s widow, and mother of Henry VII. Being descended from the antenuptial children of John of Gaunt's third wife, who had been legitimatised by act of parliament for all purposes except succession to the crown,
Henry VII. would probably desire by every means in his power to suppress anything suggestive of his unsubstantial title to the crown. It might be by his particular desire that his mother assumed the full regal shield, on which to emblazon arms differing but slightly from those of her son, the king.
It is not, however, my opinion that the form of shield under consideration is anything like so ancient as some of the authors would make it. I do not believe it comes to us either from the Amazons or the Romans.
My own opinion, in the absence of any from the great writers to guide me, is, that we owe the use of this form of shield amongst ladies to hatchments or funeral achievements. During the time of mourning for persons of rank, their coats of arms are set up in churches and over the principal entrances of their houses. On these occasions it is well known their arms are always placed in a large black lozenge; a form adopted as the most proper figure for admitting the coats of arms of sixteen ancestors to be placed round it, four on each of the sides of the square.
It was not until the reign of Richard III. that the College of Arms was regularly incorporated; and though the science of heraldry received its highest polish during the splendid reigns of Edward III. and Henry V., it had yet scarcely been subjected to those rules which since the establishment of the College have controlled it. Mark Noble, in his History of the College of Arms, says that the latter reign—
"If it did not add to the wealth of the nation at large, gave rise to a number of great families, enriched by the spoils of Azincourt, the plunder of France, and the ransom of princes. The heraldic body was peculiarly prized and protected by the king, who, however, was very whimsical in the adoption of cognizances and devices."
During the greater portion of the fourteenth century, and the early part of the fifteenth, there was a rage for jousts, tilts, and tournaments; and almost every English nobleman had his officers of arms; dukes, marquesses, and earls were allowed a herald and pursuivant; the lower nobility, and even knights, might retain one of the latter. To these officers belonged the ordering of everything relating to the solemn and magnificent funerals, which were so general in these centuries, and which they presided over and marshalled.