510
NOTES AND QUERIES. [11 s. x. DEC. 26, 1914.
search some few years since, but I have no
clear remembrance of the story, and should
be glad if any kind correspondent of ' N. & Q.'
would relate it succinctly.
ST. SWITHIN.
" THE PYRAMID IN LONDON." Sir William Temple in his essay ' Upon Ancient and Modern Learning ' says it would be as reasonable to put " the pyramid in London " above those of Memphis as to put modern literature above ancient. What was this " pyramid in London " ?
G. C. MOORE SMITH.
Sheffield.
FRANCE AND ENGLAND
QUARTERLY.
(11 S. x. 281, 336, 396, 417, 458.)
MR. EDEN'S note at the first reference, suggesting the revival of the French fleur- de-lis in the British Royal arms, raises some very interesting questions, both his- torical and heraldic. He contends that it is a popular mistake to suppose that the assumption by Edward III., King of England, of the lilies of France, as related by Froissart, was intended to signify a claim to the crown of France, and that it was merely the exercise of his undoubted right so to do by virtue of descent as the direct representative of the House of Anjou, and by the ordinary rules of heraldry. He gets over the difficulty that none of the King's predecessors since Henry II. who would have been the first thus entitled to bear the arms of Anjou with the Royal arms had exercised this right by the statement that the use of " quartered " shields only occurred, and then but rarely, early in the fourteenth century, or late in the thirteenth.
Heraldry, however, is an exact science, and there must be authorities on this matter. Boutell ('Heraldry, Historical and Popular,' 1864, p. 157) follows Planche ('Pursuivant of Arms,' 1852, p. 165) in assigning this prac- tice to that period, and points to the tomb of Queen Alianore, daughter of the King of Castile and Leon, and first wife of Edward I., in Westminster Abbey. This is, no doubt', to what MR. EDEN refers. This is confirmed by Dr. Woodward, whose work ' Heraldry British and Foreign' (2 vols., 1896), must certainly be looked upon as a high authority, and who, whilst noting the Westminster
example, says (ii. 99-100) that the Roll of
Edward II. (1308-11) affords the first known
English example of a quartered coat by a
subject, namely, that of Sir Simon de Mon-
tagu. He goes on to say that
" quarterings are, however, rarely found on seals, excepting those of very great personages, in the fourteenth and even in the fifteenth century. The sixteenth was the time of the great development of the practice."
So it would seem that, had they chosen to do so, our first two Edwards who certainly were " very great personages " might have done what our third Edward did, had this coat been theirs merely by right of descent.
MR. EDEN makes a strong point in support of his argument when he asks, If the assump- tion of the lilies was intended as a claim to the French crown, why should they have been given precedence over the lions of England, by being placed in the first quarter of the Royal arms instead of in a later one, or even, more correctly, upon a " shield of pretence " ? No doubt the mere fact of " quartering " connotes a claim by descent ; if otherwise, the claim should be by a shield of pretence. But this, of course, must be subject to the fact that at that period shields, or inescutcheons, of pretence were used for that purpose.
Let us see what heraldic authorities say upon that point. Boutell (p. 31) speaks of an inescutcheon of silver, or sometimes of ermine, being borne by the Mortimers. But whether this was merely a charge, or intended to represent a claim to an inheritance, may perhaps be questioned, for at p. 140, when speaking of marshalling and inheritance, he states that the adoption of a shield of pretence was " in accordance with a comparatively recent usage." Dr. Woodward, however, is a little more explicit on the subject, and says (ii. 107) :
" Another mode of marshalling came into use some time after quartering, namely, the placing a small escucheon en surtout upon the centre of the quartered coat."
So it would appear more than doubtful if MR. EDEN can rely upon this argument in support of his contention.
With regard to the lilies being in the first quarter, MR. BAYLEY (p. 336) cites the protest of King Philip against the French lilies being placed in any other quarter of the English arms from Mr. E. E. Dorling's ' Leopards of England ' ; and it is not difficult to imagine that the relatively greater importance of France to England for neither Crecy nor Poitiers had been fought yet might have had considerable influence upon Edward's decision.
