I’ve found very little specific information on the application of Cadency Marks.  Although I suppose my questions could apply to many types of cadency I am specifically asking about the English system.

I have a friend who is considering designing arms for himself and asked me how the cadency would work for his two sons.  I know the first son would use a label of three points and the second would use a crescent…

But how exactly are borne?  Is there a specific place they go on the arms?  Is there a preferred color?  And how big should they be?  Or is some or all of this left up to the artist?

Also, am I correct that the mark of cadency is not described in the blazon?

Except on paper, I don’t think the English system really exists anymore.

To answer your question, the mark of cadency is usually borne in the chief but can be found almost anywhere on the shield. When the arms are quartered, it is placed in the centre. The tincture is up to the designer though the usual rules of tincture normally apply.

The label is also usually borne in chief and can be of any contrasting colour (it’s exempt from the tincture rule).

As far as I’m aware cadency marks are always included in the blazon.

I’m going to let an expert chime in here - but the blazons I’ve seen often (CHA is the one easiest to recall) say something to the effect:

<original blazon>differenced by <whatever> The CHA has some Here

And The CHA says <original arms> debruised of <cadency method> Here

I see Sandy covered the rest of the question.

I was reading about Scottish cadency practices today. From what I understand, the oldest son has a label of three points until he inherits his father’s arms, and a grandson would have a label of five points. Which got me thinking: what if the armiger has a great-grandson while he’s still alive. Does the great-grandson then get a label of seven points for his arms? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a label of seven points.

I am not entirely perfect (nor am I entirely British :GreatBritain:), and if anyone sees error, please do come in and correct me.

Given what I know so far, as much as it’s quite interesting and looks very cool, I’ve shunned the purely English historical sytsem of cadency.

Instead I recommended to my dad to use any form of differencing desired by cadet as long as no more than two points of difference are used:
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
(change of tincture for one or all charges is one point, change of number or shape of all charges of a set is another point, change or removal of an ordinary or set of charges is a point, parting of the field is a point, and so on).
</div>
I may also convince brothers to design and create arms differenced properly for their own kids rather than let kids create arms themselves so that those arms, even though properly differenced will be just as much of a "gift" from the parent to the child as his own undifferenced arms to his first born son (or oldest daughter if no sons).

So about the Englsih… in the english system, Argent marks of cadency are reserved for royalty and Gules marks are "preferred" otherwise.

Marks "usually" appear in chief but do not have to depending on the layout of the arms.  They will be surmounted or overlaying any other charges they happen to collide with (cadency marks will always be "on top"). This is only for the person’s arms who is applying the mark, for instance if succeeding generations have quartered the arms, the cadency mark will be treated normally just like any other charge and move appropriately with the arms it was applied to. I should probably also mention another common place is Fess point (middle of the shield) instead of chief.

Any new cadency for children of cadets will have their own cadency marks applied over the parents’ cadency marks.  This creates a problem after more than two generations as marks will stack up and be unreadable.

The other issue is that if no other differencing is used than just the English cadency marks, two members of the same extended family will inevitably bear the same cadency marks for different reason (uncle and nephew both bearing the same cresecent of second son).  This will cause the very problem for which English cadency was adopted in the first place: two people bearing the same arms.  Of course, if this were discovered, I guess a judgement could be made I spose, and the loser have to difference arms further or in some other way.

I think the scots system of cadency is more efficient (uses borders which are specific even for extended family), but scottish cadency is a legal issue intended for use really only for arms under its jurisdiction and (so far as I know) only given to those "cadets" who actually matriculate their arms with Lord Lyon.  It would not make sense to me to use the scottish cadency if my arms weren’t overtly governed by scottish law and custom and I hadn’t had them matriculated or granted by Scotts. Actually, I would loudly recommend that no one use the scottish cadency UNLESS they matriculated or were granted… as it would really seem like bad form to me.

Last thing… I’ve seen labels used for 1st son cadet arms in historical continental European arms.  I have also been informed by members here that colors for the label can be other than Gules and Argent (my use of Or for example) in continental arms, thus the label can’t be said to be strictly English and you can use it without having to adopt the English system.

For actual contemporary/modern use of cadency in England, I can’t comment at all as I am not sure that commoner cadency is even used anymore.

I should probably add that most here would probably argue against my position of even using a label since most don’t feel continental arms restricted first born son from using dad’s arms by courtesy during lifetime, except in highest nobility and royalty.  I disagree with everyone here only because….

(prepare for my supremely self validated truth which trumps all educated rationale) :pope:

...if the zombie apocalypse happens :aiee:, in the deluge of zombie body parts, I want to be easily recognized from my dad on the field because I will have challenged him to a contest of chainsaws vs. zombies and I want everyone to be able to see who won.  Not possible if my arms are undifferenced during his lifetime, see? :marine:

Also, to add to Kathy’s comment on "debruised".... this term is used to indicate that the item debruising is actually surmounting or being placed over the item which is being debruised.  Debruised is not limited to the use of cadency.

arriano;83352 wrote:

I was reading about Scottish cadency practices today. From what I understand, the oldest son has a label of three points until he inherits his father’s arms, and a grandson would have a label of five points. Which got me thinking: what if the armiger has a great-grandson while he’s still alive. Does the great-grandson then get a label of seven points for his arms? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a label of seven points.

While it is possible that a g-g-grandson might be in the picture, it is unlikely that he would be of age to need to use arms while his g-g-grandfather is still alive.

Jeffery,

Although the English/Irish system of cadency is not perfect, it does have its uses and works well in certain circumstances.  So saying, I agree that theoretically it could become ‘top heavy’, say with the mullet of the third son being charged with an annulet to denote that third son’s, fifth son and so on.  Ordinarily, this rarely occurs.  In days past, most armigerous gentlemen married armigerous ladies so the impalement (or if an heraldic heiress, the escutcheon of pretence) would, in essence, differentiate one son from another within a family, unless, of course, they both married sisters. This being the case they could continue bearing their particular mark of cadency on their paternal arms.  Likewise, I believe it a general rule (or common sense) that when a gentleman marries an heraldic heiress and their children eventually quarter their mother’s arms (on her death) with or without any other quarterings that she may have brought in can drop any marks of cadency borne upon their paternal arms, the additional quarterings are effectively a new difference, although if there is more than one son in the family, each of those sons would generally be required to place a new mark of cadency at the middle chief point, honour point or fess point over the join of two or more quarterings in order to denote their place in the family.  As may be realised, when cadency is employed it is often the exception rather than the rule.

Yes, the argent/white label is reserved for members of the Royal Family, and other than the heir apparent all other labels within the Royal Family are charged with one device or more.  For all other armigers, all marks of cadency may be of any tincture (the heir apparent, any tincture, other than argent/white).  Also, marks of cadency should shown somewhat smaller in order for them to be seen as temporary charges and not permanent ones.  This being said, the label may be of any size. Traditionally, it overlays the entire chief of the shield, although smaller labels are often employed, say in the dexter chief or at honour or fess point all according to the disposition of the charges.

It should also be noted that historically in England (& Wales) and Ireland there is no individual cadency for women.  They carry upon there arms their father’s cadency mark.  Again, when they marry (or have married in the past) a armigerous gentlemen they would ordinarily drop the cadency mark from their arms as the marshalling of her paternal arms with those of her husband is due difference enough.

With regarding to blazoning.  A blazon would generally say: ‘Argent a cross gules a crescent for difference’.  As you will notice, often their is no mention of the placement of the cadency mark or its tincture.  This is because such a mark is one of a temporary nature and the placement and tincture is left to the armiger or his artist to decide.

The present day use of cadency marks within English, Welsh and Irish families is only wanting because of a distinct lack of knowledge of heraldic lore in many of these families.  Just because one stems from a long line of gentlemen and ladies who have borne arms for centuries does not mean that you have the least idea of how heraldry works within the familial context.

John

John, this is the best explanation of English cadency I have ever encountered, thankyou! :D

Kenneth Mansfield;83358 wrote:

While it is possible that a g-g-grandson might be in the picture, it is unlikely that he would be of age to need to use arms while his g-g-grandfather is still alive.

Thanks for your response. Did a little digging, and apparently labels of seven points aren’t unheard of. The arms of Saer de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester, were Argent, a fess azure, a label of seven points gules.

More digging resulted in me finding this from Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, 1868: "It is said that the eldest son’s eldest son should wear a label of five points in his grandfather’s lifetime, and, similarly, the great-grandson a label of seven points, two points being added for each generation." So while obviously a rarity, I guess it has already been considered and dealt with.

Arian,

According to Burke’s General Armory, Robert de Quincy went five better bearing as his arms: ‘Or a fess gules a label of twelve points azure’.  With regard to the label, it should be borne in mind that in early heraldry it was also a charge and its alternative name was a ‘file’.  The Quincy labels or files are, therefore, in all probability charges rather than marks of cadency.

John