26
HERALDRY.
In the infancy of heraldry, every knight assumed what armorial distinctions
he pleased, without consulting his sovereign. Animals, plants, imaginary mon-
sters, things artificial, and objects familiar to pilgrims were adopted; and when-
ever possible, the object chosen was one the name of which bore some resem-
blance in sound to suggest the name of the bearer. The Appletons have three
apples in their shield; the Bells, three bells; the Masons, three trowels; the
Swans, three birds of that name; and the Ryedales, three ears of rye. As coats-
of-arms became more numerous, confusion often arose from the use, by different
knights, of the same symbols; and this confusion was augmented by the prac
tice of feudal chiefs in allowing their followers to bear their arms in battle as
a mark of honor. In this way different coats-of-arms so closely resembled each
other, that it was imperative, for distinction's sake, that some restrictions and
regulations should be laid down respecting the character, number, and position
of the figures represented on the shields. This necessity led, in the course of
time, to the development of a regular system of heraldry, and the ancient rolls
show that the process was going on in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
In England, the assumption of arms by private persons was first restrained by a
proclamation from Henry V, which prohibited every one who had not borne arms
at Agincourt to assume them, except in virtue of inheritance or a grant from the
crown. To enforce this rule, heralds' visitations through the counties were insti-
tuted, and continued from time to time, for centuries. So strict were the laws
regarding coats-of-arms at this time, that a man who had assumed certain armo-
rial bearings without proper authority, lost one of his ears as a penalty. When
herald visitations were instituted, all persons claiming the right to bear arms
were warned to assemble at some stated place in the district, and to bring with
them all arms, crests, and pedigrees, for examination by the herald's deputy,
and present evidence of their genuineness.
In the united kingdom of Great Britain, no one is entitled to bear arms with-
out a hereditary claim by descent, or a grant from the competent authority,
this jurisdiction being executed by the Herald's College in England, the Lyon
Court in Scotland, and the College of Arms in Ireland. It is illegal to use
without authority, not only a coat-of-arms, but even a crest. The passion for
outward distinction is so deeply implanted in human nature, that in this country,
where all differences of rank are repudiated, men are found assuming heraldic
devices, and the interest in this practice has so increased that hundreds of
families have framed coats-of-arms hanging on the walls of their houses, en-
graved on their jewelry, displayed on their stationery, and even painted on the
doors of their carriages, in imitation of the aristocracy of Great Britain. Some
of these coats-of-arms were authoritatively borne by their ancestors in the old
country, and others are fictitious, having been originally drawn or painted by men
who early canvassed New England with books containing cuts of shields and
appendages, purporting to have been granted to families in England and Scot-
land, which they claimed our American ancestors had a right to bear, by virtue
of relationship.
As many who will read this book do not understand the "language of her-
aldry," the characters and abbreviations used in describing the coats-of-arms that
have been borne by the various branches of the Riddell and Ridley families, will
be unintelligible, unless a comprehensive explanation is given, to which reference
may be had for directions. Such a chapter will be both interesting and instructive
to all who possess any family pride, as well as to the general reader. The fol-
lowing articles, with tables, will be all that is necessary for this purpose:
-
