duke was willing to ally his family intimately with Hertford's. Lord Thomas Howard may have been the person who was supposed to have evaded a match with a daughter of Lord Hertford in the hope of marrying the Lady Mary. He was indeed some thirteen years younger than Mary, but then Philip of Spain, whom she married six years later, was her junior by eleven years. Such a marriage would of course have added greatly to the importance of the Howards, and the united power of Mary, of her cousin the Emperor Charles heir of the house of Burgundy, and of the Howards the hereditary partisans of the Burgundian alliance, would doubtless have put the protectorship within the grasp of Norfolk or of Surrey. However, at this time Thomas was husband of his first wife, heiress of the last Lord Marney. She died in 1549, and it is possible that her death or that of Surrey's wife Question of was expected at this time. The question as to Surrey's the arms is intricate. It seems that Surrey change of in 1544, shortly before he sailed with the king change in to Calais, sent Sir Gilbert Dethyke, Richmond Herald, to summon Sir Christopher Barker, Garter King of Arms, who was afterwards a witness against him, to his house at Lambeth. There he showed Garter a shield of four quarters, in which the arms of Thomas of Brotherton, son of Edward I., were placed in the first quarter, and

arms.

Proposed

1544.

very

those of Edward the Confessor, of Amory and of Mowbray in the other quarters, and said he would bear it. Garter asked by what title. Surrey replied that Brotherton bore it so. Garter showed it was not in his pedigree. Surrey said he found it in a house in Norfolk, graven in stone so, and he would bear it. Garter told him

it was not for his honour so to do. Naturally Garter was right and Surrey was wrong. Surrey was entitled to wear the arms of Brotherton and of the Confessor, but not as he wished to wear them.

sor's arms.

It had pleased Richard II. to impale the arms The Confesof France and England with those attributed to the Confessor. Impalement must be distinguished from quartering. It was a vertical division of the shield, and usually adapted for uniting the arms of a husband and a wife. Thus it did not ordinarily signify heirship. Probably Richard meant, by impaling the Confessor's arms, to signify that he placed himself in the saint's patronage. Richard's shield was divided by a vertical line, on the right side of which were placed the arms of the Confessor, whilst the arms of France and England were placed quarterly on the left. Richard granted the privilege of impaling similarly the Confessor's arms, flanked by two ostrich feathers, to Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Norfolk, and to his descendants. Thomas was great-grandson and

Arms of

heir of Thomas of Brotherton the elder of Edward I.'s two sons by his second marriage. The arms of Brotherton were the three lions of England, with a plain silver label with three points as a mark of cadency. The marks of cadency differed from time to time, but the silver label with three points had in Henry VIII.'s reign become the difference of the eldest son and heir apparent. Thus the arms of Henry VIII.'s son, Prince Edward, were the lilies of France knights, Surrey's quartered with the lions of England, and difancestors. ferenced by the silver label of three points. From the time of Thomas Mowbray the records of the Order of the Garter, which most illustrious of knightly orders numbers amongst its members (other than royal princes) more ancestors and descendants of Surrey's grandfather than those of any other family, and such plates of arms as are still preserved in St. George's chapel, and which I have been permitted, by the courtesy of the Dean of Windsor, to examine, enable us to trace the arms which the Garter Heralds (no mean authorities) assigned to Thomas Mowbray and his descenOf Thomas dants. Thomas himself was elected in Richard's

Duke of

Mowbray, reign, but before Richard had licensed him to imNorfolk. pale the Confessor's arms. He bears only the arms of Brotherton, the three lions, but, according Mowbrays, to Ashmole, with a label of five points. His son, scendants. grandson, and great-grandson (each a John Mow

Of the

his de

bray, and Duke of Norfolk), use the label of three points only. The privilege granted by Richard II. to impale the Confessor's arms, would with natural prudence be waived under the Lancastrian kings. It is the first of these three John Mowbrays whose arms still appear on a plate in Saint George's Chapel. With the great-grandson of the Earl of Nottingham the male line of the Mowbrays ended, and his cousin, John Howard, Lord Howard, after- Of John Howard, wards Duke of Norfolk, eventually became one of first Duke his co-heirs. Lord Howard received the garter in of Norfolk. Edward IV.'s reign. His arms are those of Brotherton, with the label of three points, and his paternal arms, the bend and crossletts of Howard, but authorities differ as to the quarters in which these arms were placed. This duke was the "Jockey of Norfolk" who fell at Bosworth. His son Thomas, who was elected in Richard III.'s reign, Of the bore Howard in the first quarter, and Brotherton Flodden in the second; but as Thomas's father was still Field. alive a second label of three points argent was extended over the whole arms. He was the Surrey of Flodden Field, and created Duke of Norfolk by Henry VIII., who also granted to him an augmentation significant of the victory over the Scotch, to be borne in the Howard bend. His son Thomas, Lord Howard, was made a of his son Knight of the Garter in Henry VIII.'s reign, and Duke of afterwards became Earl of Surrey, and Duke of Norfolk.

victor of

Thomas,

Election of
Surrey,

A.D. 1541.

VIII. c. 14,

A.D. 1541-2.

Norfolk.

He is the duke whose imprisonment has been recently mentioned.

In 1541 his son the Earl of Surrey was elected. Both father and son, as Knights of the Garter, bore the arms of Howard in the first quarter, and those of Brotherton in the second. If this arrangement was different from that of the first Howard, Duke of Norfolk, the change had probably been considered, and thought both prudent and proper. Surrey too might have taken warning 33 Henry by an Act, passed about the time of his election into the order, against making prophecies upon declaration of names, arms, badges, &c. It recited "that divers persons have taken upon them knowledge as it were what shall become of "them which bear in their arms cognisance or "badge, fields, beasts, fowls, or any other thing or "things, which hath been used, or accustomed to "be put in any of the same. Whereby in times past many noblemen have suffered, and if their prince "would give an ear thereto might hap to do here"after."

In fact the significance of armorial bearings at that time was far greater than we can well What arms estimate at the present day. We have seen that Surrey was entitled to Surrey was entitled to bear the arms of Brotherton, the lions with the silver label of three points. But he was not strictly entitled to put them in the first quarter. He, however, proposed to do so.

bear.