The Nine Point Label

[Louis Epstein]

Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?

(I realize an achievement for a child generally remains hypothetical).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[3ARwun]

Post by Louis Epstein
Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?
(I realize an achievement for a child generally remains hypothetical).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

I've seen royal arms (UK) with at least 5.. who else would care enough?

[Richard Smith]

Post by 3ARwun

Post by Louis Epstein
Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?
(I realize an achievement for a child generally remains hypothetical).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

I've seen royal arms (UK) with at least 5.. who else would care enough?

Some of the British royals with arms using a label for five points have
male-line grandsons. I've no idea whether there's any record of Lord
Culloden or Lord Downpatrick using arms - probably not as they're still
young boys - but that's where I'd look. They're not royalty so I guess,
in theory at least, that means they'd bear the normal cadency mark for
the eldest son of an eldest son. How does that work when the
undifferenced arms already have a label?

Richard

[Peter Howarth]

How does that work when the undifferenced arms already have a label?

In the past, in the comital family of Lancaster, Thomas the 2nd Earl, Henry the 3rd Earl, and Henry of Grosmont, as heirs apparent, all bore a bend on the arms of England instead of a label; and John, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton, as heir apparent, bore a bend indented instead of the family label. But in the Audley of Stratton Audley family, James IV had lions on his label, and James V KG had a label compony; and Sir Hugh Courtenay, heir apparent to the earldom of Devon, had the family label semy of annulets argent. There are therefore no binding rules governing cadency marks, despite what some writers claim. There have been certain fashions from time to time, but they were never slavishly followed by everyone.

Peter Howarth

[3ARwun]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by 3ARwun

Post by Louis Epstein
Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?

I've seen royal arms (UK) with at least 5.. who else would care enough?

Some of the British royals with arms using a label for five points have
male-line grandsons. I've no idea whether there's any record of Lord
Culloden or Lord Downpatrick using arms - probably not as they're still
young boys - but that's where I'd look. They're not royalty so I guess,
in theory at least, that means they'd bear the normal cadency mark for
the eldest son of an eldest son. How does that work when the
undifferenced arms already have a label?

more points and or charges on the points in the English system. The Scots would make a minor change instead of one major and one minor. (supposedly)

[Richard Smith]

Post by 3ARwun

Post by Richard Smith
Some of the British royals with arms using a label for five points have
male-line grandsons. I've no idea whether there's any record of Lord
Culloden or Lord Downpatrick using arms - probably not as they're still
young boys - but that's where I'd look. They're not royalty so I guess,
in theory at least, that means they'd bear the normal cadency mark for
the eldest son of an eldest son. How does that work when the
undifferenced arms already have a label?

more points and or charges on the points in the English system.

That was my guess too, and as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester both have
charges on all five points, it suggests their heirs would add points to
the label. But as others have said, these rules are perhaps more
honoured in the breach than in the observance.

By the way, I was wrong in saying Kent's grandson, Lord Downpatrick, was
still a young boy. He's not: he's 29.

Richard

[o***@gmail.com]

...apart from the fact that a 1975 Order-in-Council makes the arms borne by grandchildren in the male line hereditary and they are to be treated in the 'normal' manner as regards cadency marks rather than that used by the rest of the Royal Family. So, in other words, the five-point labels used by the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (among others) are now part and parcel of the arms in their entirety, in effect a charge rather than a regular mark of cadency. So their eldest sons would bear their arms, complete with 5-point label, with a second label of three points, their eldest agnatic grandsons, their arms with a label of five points, their second sons would bear their arms (with 5 point label) with a crescent, and so on, according to the 'normal' system of cadency borne by everyone outside the Royal Family in England.

[o***@gmail.com]

*the beginning of the above post should read 'grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign', as per the 1975 Order-in-Council.

[Richard Smith]

Post by o***@gmail.com
...apart from the fact that a 1975 Order-in-Council makes the arms
borne by grandchildren in the male line hereditary and they are to be
treated in the 'normal' manner as regards cadency marks rather than that
used by the rest of the Royal Family. So, in other words, the five-point
labels used by the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (among others) are now
part and parcel of the arms in their entirety, in effect a charge rather
than a regular mark of cadency.

Yes. That is *exactly* what I said if you bothered to read it.

Richard

[o***@gmail.com]

You said and I quote 'their heirs would add points to the label'...presumably you meant the three-point label borne by the heir to the arms rather than the five-point label that has become an inalienable part of the undifferenced arms then?

[Richard Smith]

Post by o***@gmail.com
You said and I quote 'their heirs would add points to the
label'...presumably you meant the three-point label borne by the heir
to the arms rather than the five-point label that has become an
inalienable part of the undifferenced arms then?

I said 'How does that work when the undifferenced arms already have a
label?'

Richard

[Louis Epstein]

Post by 3ARwun

Post by Louis Epstein
Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?
(I realize an achievement for a child generally remains hypothetical).

I've seen royal arms (UK) with at least 5.. who else would care enough?

Plenty of peerage families have second heirs and a significant number
third...hence my question of a fourth.

(98-year-old Viscount Falmouth has four sons,
the eldest born 1955 has three sons,
of whom the eldest born 1979 has two sons,
the elder born 2015;
they would have the three,five,and seven point labels,for example).

Post by 3ARwun

Post by Louis Epstein
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Peter Howarth]

Post by Louis Epstein
Has there ever been a case of an armigerous great-great-grandfather
whose direct heirs bore three,five,seven,and nine point labels in his
lifetime?
(I realize an achievement for a child generally remains hypothetical).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Is there really such a rule? Perhaps it's another one invented by some twopenny-ha'penny writer in the nineteenth-century who thought that it sounded good, but one which in fact had never been put into practice. As already mentioned, the Royal Family has used five points, but I've not seen them use any more than that.

Of course, Sayer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester 1207-1219, on a seal drawn by Fox-Davies had a label of seven points, on the seal illustrated in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography had a label of eight points, and on the one described in Boutell’s Heraldry had ‘a label of many points (probably twelve, but it is not easy to determine the exact number)’.

I'd like to abolish all rules in heraldry unless:
(a) there are at least twenty examples of its having been followed in the past, AND
(b) there are no examples of its having been ignored.

Peter Howarth

[3ARwun]

Post by Peter Howarth
(a) there are at least twenty examples of its having been followed in the past,

Agreed 100%; otherwise it's not much of a rule, if even a trend

Post by Peter Howarth
AND
(b) there are no examples of its having been ignored.

good luck on that one. All the rules have many exceptions. The metals and tinctures "rule" alone would have hundreds of exceptions. And it's the most famous rule!