ii s. x. DEC. . MM.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
511
Another objection apparently not noticed
by your correspondents to MB. EDEN'S
contention that these were the arms of Anjou
seems to me to be furnished by the fact that
about the year 1405 Henry IV. of England
changed his first quartering of semee de
fleurs-de-lis (France ancient) to one of
three fleurs-de-lis only (France modern).
The reason for this is stated by Boutell
(p. 296) to be that about the year 1365
Charles V. of France, with a view apparently
to distinguish between his own arms and the
fleurs-de-lis borne by the English claimants
of his crown, reduced the number of his
fleurs-de-lis to three only. Dr. Woodward,
on the other hand, states (vol. i. p. 347)
that "by an edict dated 1376 Charles V.
reduced the number of fleurs-de-lis in his
shield to three, ' pour symboliser la Sainte
Trinit6. ' ' But whatever may have been
the reason of this change, it seems clear
that the French king was followed in it by
the English sovereign, who could have
had no object in doing so had the first
quartering of the Royal arms represented
Anjou.
It is curious to note here with reference to this change in the French Royal arms that in a woodcut engraving of a banner given in Froissart (Johnes's ed., 1874, vol. i., chap, xviii. p. 19), taken from an illuminated Froissart illustrating Edward III.'s first expedition against the Scots, the first quartering of the Royal arms is clearly shown as France modern (three fleurs-de-lis only !). As Froissart was born about the year 1337, he must have written his ' Chro- nicles ' before 1405, as it is doubtful if he lived much later than the commencement of that century, and his narrative does not reach beyond the end of the preceding one.
Since I have written the last lines, how- ever, I have read the ' Advertisement ' to vol. i. of Johnes's edition of the 'Chronicles,' which may account for the above apparent anachronism. The reader is there cautioned that
"there scarcely exists one MS. contemporary with the time of the author containing illustrations, and that the dresses, &c., displayed in the wood- cuts interspersed in these volumes are almost all to be referred to a later date. The manners of the times had not undergone much alteration, nor was the costume materially different, and they at least approach very nearly to an exact representation of the scenes described in the history they illustrate."
But the strongest point against MB. EDEN'S contention is that the arms mentioned by him do not appear to be the arms of Anjou at all. MB. BAYLEY, indeed, questions the existence of any arms of Anjou (which he
gives as Azure, seme de lis or France
ancient the same as ME. EDEN) before
1297, and speaks of the shield on the slab of
champlev6 enamel of Limoges which formed
part of the tomb of Geoffrey Plantagenet,
formerly in the cathedral, and now preserved
in the local museum, at Le Mans, as being
charged with eight lions rampant. MB.
GALBBEATH (p. 396) states that the arms
adopted by the English king were not the
arms of Anjou, which he gives as Azure,
seme de lis gold, and a label gules, which
were, he says, the arms of Anjou only from
the time of Charles of Anjou, later King of
Naples, son of Louis VIII. of France. The
arms of the Plantagenet family of Anjou
may well have been, he thinks, the eight
leopards found on Geoffrey of Anjou's
shield at Le Mans, as stated by MB. BAYLEY.
Modern heraldic authority, however, does not support MB. GALBBEATH'S statement that the above arms, as borne by Charles of Anjou, were the arms of Anjou. These arms must rather have been borne by him as represent- ing Naples, the arms of which Dr. Woodward (vol. ii. pp. 90, 321) gives as France ancient, a label gules. The arms of Anjou are given both by Boutell (p. 307) and by Woodward (vol. ii. p. 321) as France ancient within a bordure gules. The latter, in speaking (vol. ii. p. 276) of the seal of Louis, Due d' Anjou in 1370, refers to an engraving (plate xxii. fig. 5) wherein these arms ap- pear, though the tinctures are not specified.
The fact therefore, I think, is clear that the plain coat of France ancient as quartered by Edward III. was not that of Anjou, and could only have denoted a claim to the crown of France. This view is supported by modern writers, and is mentioned by Boutell (p. 295). It was on the fourth seal of Edward III. (Feb.-June, 1340), according to Dr. Woodward (vol. i. p. 348), that his arms appeared as Quarterly, 1 and 4 France, 2 and 3 England. Further, was not he the first of our sovereigns to style himself "Rex.... Francie " on some of his coinage ? a title not discontinued until the later coinage of George III. What significance can this have but that it represented a claim to the crown of France ?
Is there any reason why doubt should bn thrown upon the account given by Froissart in his ' Chronicles,' chap, xliii., as to how this claim by Edward III. came to be made ? The story is there graphically related, and should have particular interest for us at this time. The King of England was in Flanders in 1339 upon an expedition directed against King Philip of France, and was advised by
