Let us assume that an American has four armigerous grandparents.
If I have a correct understanding of marshaling, then both of his parents may bare quartered arms with their respective fathers in I and IV, and their respective mothers in II and III.
Now, continuing onward, what options are available for our friend?
Sticking to the rules, he could bare his father in I and IV and his mother in II and III, just as his parents had done. This, however, would give him quite tautological arms of just four shields occupying sixteen grandquarters.
Wanting to avoid a “Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville” situation, is there any precedence for arranging these four shields to fill four quarters?
Unfortunately, I can’t see the image (all that shows up is a frog sejant contourné Or within an ice cube proper).
steven harris;92553 wrote:
If I have a correct understanding of marshaling, then both of his parents may bear quartered arms with their respective fathers in I and IV, and their respective mothers in II and III.
If their mothers were heraldic heiresses or else the original grantees or assumers of their arms. Our friend would inherit his mother’s arms only if she were an heiress too.
Quote:
Now, continuing onward, what options are available for our friend?
Sticking to the rules, he could bear his father in I and IV and his mother in II and III, just as his parents had done. This, however, would give him quite tautological arms of just four shields occupying sixteen grandquarters.
Wanting to avoid a “Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville” situation, is there any precedence for arranging these four shields to fill four quarters?
That depends whose rules he’s following. The English preference is to avoid grand-quarters, unless one of the inherited quartered coats is impartible, e.g. it was sanctioned as a quartered coat by Royal Licence. Otherwise, the four quarterings would be arranged separately on his shield e.g. I Father, II Father’s mother, III Mother’s father, IV Mother’s mother.
In Scotland, apparently, grand-quartering is more common.
Arthur Radburn;92557 wrote:
I Father, II Father’s mother, III Mother’s father, IV Mother’s mother.
I fugured correctly for I and IV - but I didn’t know if father’s mother or mother’s father would belong in II or III
steven harris;92558 wrote:
I fugured correctly for I and IV - but I didn’t know if father’s mother or mother’s father would belong in II or III
Fox-Davies stated the principle as follows :
To sum the rule up, it is necessary first to take all the quarterings inherited from the father and arrange them in a proper sequence, and then follow on in the same sequence with the arms and quarterings inherited from the mother.
The diagrams in Boutell’s Heraldry are useful.
Fox-Davies isn’t authoritative here (USA)—he was just an early 20th century reporter of British practice, & an advocate for certain British practices which some other Brits haven’t accepted as mandatory.
I don’t think we would encourage a lot of quartering as "best practice"—adds clutter etc.—neither would we argue that it’s improper, particularly when the quartering is particularly significant.
Others may differ of course.
Arthur Radburn;92557 wrote:
Unfortunately, I can’t see the image (all that shows up is a frog sejant contourné Or within an ice cube proper).
I thought I was the only one with the frozen frog!
