^{page 139 note 1} On this use of the term ‘beast’ see the present writer in The Queen's Beasts (Newman Neame Ltd., 1954), p. 15,Google Scholar and Royal Beasts (Heraldry Society, 1956, p. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} White, G. H. F.S.A., ‘The Constitutio Domus Regis and the King's Sport’, Antiq.Journ. xxx, 1950, p. 52,CrossRefGoogle Scholar etc. and works there cited.

^{page 139 note 3} Bodleian MS. Ashm. 1121, fo. 233.

^{page 139 note 4} Cast in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries; Archaeologia, lxxxv, 1936, pl. 86 (3)Google Scholar; Blair, C. H. Hunter, Durham Seals, no. 3051.Google Scholar It is remarkable that the arms on this seal are Old France and England quarterly, although the semy of Old France had been replaced in general use by the three lis of New France for nearly a century. It seems indeed that the same reverse was used in the Common Pleas by Edward III and all succeeding sovereigns to Edward IV, the spandrels between shield and legend being blank. Richard III added two boars in those spaces, and Henry VII changed the boars to greyhounds, but otherwise the design was unchanged. This point was touched on by Sir Hilary Jenkinson in his paper on ‘The Great Seal of England: Deputed or Departmental Seals’ (Archaeologia, lxxxv, 302-3), but it has been clarified by the recent researches of Mr. R. H. Ellis, F.S.A., whose help on this and other points I acknowledge with gratitude.

^{page 140 note 1} Vetusta Monumenta, iii, pl. 38; , Willement, Regal Heraldry, p. 59Google Scholar; Arch. Journ. lxxxiv, 382.

^{page 140 note 2} See, e.g. , Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, p. 213.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 3} Cautley, H. Munro, Royal Arms and Commandments in our Churches, 1934, p. 21Google Scholar; Country Life, 22nd October and 26th November 1953.Google Scholar Cf. , Willement, Regal Heraldry, pl. xvGoogle Scholar from British Museum MS. Royal 8 G. 7, Sandford, F., A Genealogical History of the Kings and Queens of England, 1707, p. 479Google Scholar; , Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen, pp. 332–3;Google ScholarEve, G. W., Decorative Heraldry, p. 217Google Scholar.

^{page 140 note 4} Palgrave, F., The Antient Kalendars and. Inventories of … H.M. Exchequer, 1836, ii, p. 281,Google Scholar nos. 25, 26. Sandford says that Henry VIII used the dragon and greyhound as supporters in the beginning of his reign, but afterwards discontinued the greyhound and replaced it with a lion of England (p. 479), and a similar statement is to be found in later writers. It is, however, doubtful whether the dragon-greyhound combination was ever completely superseded by the lion and dragon. If it was so superseded this can only have been in the last ten or twelve years of the reign, for the dragon and greyhound are the usual, if not the only supporters in the new work ordered by Henry VIII at Hampton Court Palace in the 1530's, and that in spite of the fact that as a single beast the lion was set there hardly less often than the dragon and greyhound. In the chapel of King's College, Cambridge, which was finished by 1515, only the dragon and greyhound support the royal arms in the older work. But on the choir screen and other woodwork erected in the time of Anne Boleyn, 1533-6, three different pairs of supporters are to be seen, a dragon and a greyhound, a lion and a dragon, and two lions. On the other hand, if my reading of the beasts on the flying buttresses at the west end of the nave is correct, the lion and dragon do appear together there. The four westernmost buttresses on each side each carry two beasts, one towards the top, the other lower down. These originally held vanes, but both vanes and staves have disappeared. These beasts face each other in pairs, the pairs being placed alternately, a lion and an antelope for Henry VI, and a dragon and a greyhound for Henry VII. The rest of the buttresses carry no beasts with the single exception of the fifth from the west on the north side. That also bears two beasts, a dragon above and a lion below, but whereas on the other buttresses both beasts face the same way, in this case the dragon faces east and the lion west. They must therefore be read as a pair, and as the beasts cannot have been executed, still less chosen, after about 1510, it follows that the dragon-greyhound and lion-dragon combinations must both have been used from the very beginning of Henry VIII's reign. That conclusion is moreover corroborated by the contemporary painting of the English camp at the Field of Cloth of Gold, an engraving of which was published by the Society of Antiquaries in 1774. In this the royal lodging appears in the middle foreground as an elaborate wooden erection displaying the royal arms over the entrance and royal beasts at the four corners of the central turret. Over the archway the shield is supported by the lion and dragon, but on the turret the beasts are two dragons and two greyhounds. Four more beasts, probably meant for lions, squat at the corners of the main roof. All eight beasts hold vanes or small banners charged with badges, the cross of St. George, the rose, portcullis, and fleur-de-lis (cf. Archaeologia, iii, 202, etc.). The royal arms in Rushbrooke church afford an even later example of the dragon and greyhound than any of the above, for they seem to date from about 1540; on the other hand they lack the official sanction of arms displayed in a royal palace.

^{page 140 note 5} Archaeologia, lxxxix, 1943, pi. viii(e); Durham Seals, no. 3056.

^{page 140 note 6} The Antiques Review, June 1953, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Unless other references are given all seals mentioned in this paper are described from casts in the Society's collection.

^{page 141 note 2} A Sussex iron fireback with the dragon and greyhound as supporters and the motto ‘Dieu et mon Droit’, also bears the initials ‘E.R.’, which may stand either for Edward VI or for Elizabeth I ( , Eve, Heraldry as Art, p. 187).Google Scholar This, however, may be no more than an instance of the founder using an old mould without troubling to correct anything except the initials; the motto suggests Edward VI rather than Elizabeth.

^{page 141 note 3} Archaeologia, lxxxv, pi. 94 (5).

^{page 141 note 4} Ibid. p. 328.

^{page 141 note 5} Catalogue of British Seal-Dies in the British Museum, by Tonnochy, A. B. F.S.A., 1952, no. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 6} Ibid. no. 19.

^{page 141 note 7} Sandford, p. 487, calls the sinister supporter a lion with a griffin's head. But albeit the forelegs are a lion's and there is no vestige of ears nor of the rays or spikes which distinguish the male griffin, that creature was certainly meant, for Anne's father was created Earl of Ormonde in 1527, and Anne's arms are supported elsewhere by a leopard and a male griffin (College of Arms MSS. I. 2, fo. 13 and D. 4, fo. 1; Banners, Standards and Badges, De Walden Library, 1904, p. 17).Google Scholar It would seem that the carver, who was almost certainly a foreigner and unlikely to be familiar with the Ormonde beast, was told to produce a wingless griffin, and that he found the griffin described in some bestiary as having all its bodily members like a lion's but wings and mask like an eagle's (see for example the Cambridge University Bestiary translated by White, T. H. in The Book of Beasts, 1954, pp. 23–24).Google Scholar He therefore produced a lion with an eagle's head, omitting the wings but adding a beard of Aaronic luxuriance. Willement's blazon of the supporters as a leopard and a greyhound (Regal Heraldry, p. 69, n.) is sadly at fault.

^{page 141 note 8} The achievement is painted in two manuscripts in the College of Arms, Prince Arthur's Book, p. 72, and I. 2, fo. 1. It is a lozenge, Quarterly, 1 and 4. France; 2. England; 3. Spain as borne by Catherine of Aragon. The lozenge is crowned with an open coronet of fleurs-delis and formy crosses, and supported by the greyhound and eagle. The paintings are reproduced respectively by , Willement in Regal Heraldry, pl. xix,Google Scholar and by , Foster in Banners etc., p. 21,Google Scholar and it is remarkable that both editors described the achievement as that of Queen Mary. Willement even animadverted on the impropriety of Mary quartering her ‘husband's’ arms in that way. Apart from the fact that both manuscripts were painted thirty years or so before Mary's accession and marriage, the use of the lozenge and the unarched coronef show clearly that the achievement is that of a maiden princess and that the Spanish quartering must be for Mary's mother, Catherine of Aragon.

^{page 142 note 1} p. 132. For reasons which will be explained below this manuscript must be regarded as authoritative, Princess Mary was married to Louis XII in October 1514, but he died not three months later, on 1st January 1515, and in 1517 she married Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. Her achievement has a further interest as the shield is enclosed by a collar of Tudor roses (party gules and argent) en soleil laced with blue ribands to the golden scallop shells of the French Order of St. Michel. Some other examples of such combined collars are noticed by Nichols, J. G. in a paper ‘On Collars of the Royal Livery’ printed in The Gentleman's Magazine, February-December 1842 (reprint pp. 14, 15)Google Scholar.

^{page 142 note 2} See, e.g. , Perrin, British Flags, 1922, p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Banners etc., pp. 79, 99, from Coll. Arm. MS. I. 2, ff. 26, 36. Prince Arthur's Book, p. 54, paints a banner party paleways; the dexter half is white charged with a red dragon and a chief of St. George surcharged with a red rose regally crowned; the sinister half is green powdered with gold fleurs-de-lis and charged with a white greyhound with red collar having in dexter chief the Windsor sun-burst and in sinister chief the Beaufort portcullis ensigned with an open coronet. This is reproduced in colour in the Illustrated Catalogue of the Society of Antiquaries' Heraldic Exhibition, 1894, pl. XXXIIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 142 note 4} See ‘Wriothesley's Funeral Banners’, Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 45132, p. 42. This is a note about eight standards made by ‘Anthony Tote Sargeaunt Paynter’ in 1545, two each of the lion, dragon, greyhound, and white hart. The standards were 15 ft. long tapering from 4 ft. to 8 in. The colours of the field and fringe varied, the greyhound being on a banner of blue and yellow with red and blue fringe. See also Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, iii, 1836, p. 59,Google Scholar from MS. Harl. 4632, a collection of banners, etc., made about 1530 by Christopher Barker, then Richmond Herald and afterwards, 1536-50, Garter.

^{page 142 note 5} The Diary of Henry Machyn, Camden Soc. no. 42, 1848, pp. 39–40,Google Scholar 182; Sandford, p. 498; , Leland, Collectanea, ed. Hearne, , 1774, v, 307,Google Scholar 323; Vetusta Monumenta, iii, pi. 19, from a manuscript in the British Museum

^{page 142 note 6} , Palgrave, op. cit. ii, p. 288, no. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 7} , A. and Wyon, A. B., The Great Seals of England, p. 68,Google Scholar pl. xviii, no. 99, and passim to p. 105, pi. xxxvii, no. 141; Sandford, pp. 457-8, 546-8a. On Charles II's first Great Seal the hound was replaced by a lion ( Bodleian Quarterly Record, no. 7, supplement, 1915, p. 199)Google Scholar; it reappeared on his second Great Seal, but disappeared for good on the third Seal. On the Great Seal for Ireland, however, the greyhound still appears in 19 Ch. II, although the third seal, with no greyhound, was already being used in England.

^{page 142 note 8} Archaeologia, lxxxv, pl. 87, 91, 92.

^{page 142 note 9} Ibid. pl. 98.

^{page 143 note 1} Archaeologia, iii, 209.

^{page 143 note 2} See ‘The Beaufort Chapel’ by Venables, Canon E. M., in George's, Friends of St., Report to 31st December 1952, pp. 18,Google Scholar 21 and pl. v.

^{page 143 note 3} ‘The Roof-Bosses in St. George's Chapel, Windsor’ by Cave, C. J. P. and London, H. S. in Archaeologia, xcv, 1953, pp. 107–22;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWillement, T., The Collegiate Chapel of St. George, Windsor, 1844, pp. 25,Google Scholar etc.; Hope, W. H. St. J., Windsor Castle, pp. 454, etcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 143 note 4} A war-ship somewhat larger than a galley, propelled partly by oars and partly by sail.

^{page 143 note 5} Montagu, J. A., A Guide to the Study of Heraldry, 1940, p. 74Google Scholar; Archaeologia, vi, 1872, p. 218Google Scholar.

^{page 143 note 6} The Diary of Henry Machyn, pp. 302, 394.

^{page 143 note 7} I thank Mr. C. V. Hill, Deputy Librarian at the Admiralty, for this and much other information about H.M. ships bearing this name.

^{page 143 note 8} Sandford, p. 479.

^{page 143 note 9} ‘Heraldic Decoration of the Drawbridge of the Medieval Bridge of Rochester’ in Archaeologia Cantiana, Ixiii, 1951, pp. 140–3.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 10} , Hope, Windsor Castle, p. 257.Google Scholar The beasts were the eagle, lion, antelope, greyhound, griffin, and dragon.

^{page 143 note 11} I have to thank Sir Owen Morshead, K.C.V.O., the Queen's Librarian, for drawing my attention to this. The fireplace is illustrated in his book Windsor Castle, pl. 53. The beasts are lion of England, dragon, greyhound, antelope, bull, hart, crowned falcon (for Queen Anne Boleyn), boar, panther, and swan. Mr. John Summerson, F.S.A. tells me that, in the course of re- search on the King's Works, he discovered that the chimney-piece was carved by John Pinckney (Public Record Office, Var. Acs. AO. 3/1243).

^{page 144 note 1} Drake's revision of , Hasted'sHistory of Kent, p. 61,Google Scholar citing the works accounts. One Robert Dixon was paid 26s. each for the four beasts with an extra 4s. 6d. for the greyhound's tail which was of iron. In connexion with Queen Elizabeth's use of the greyhound one should perhaps recall a passage in Legh's, GerardAccedence of Armorie, published in 1562:Google Scholar ‘The horses friende is the Grey-hound, and the Beare is his mortall enemie, which in both naturally by kinde is planted, as at their first encountring most cruelly fight together' (fo. 54b). Prima facie this is a straightforward statement of fact, but J. G. Nichols thought that the greyhound might allude to the queen, the horse to the earl of Arundel, and the bear to the earl of Leicester (Herald and Genealogist, i, 64). Readers must weigh for themselves the credibility of that suggestion. I will only say that a horse was certainly an Arundel badge, and that a bear or a bear and ragged staff was Lord Leicester's badge.

^{page 144 note 2} ‘On the Stone Bridge at Hampton Court’ by the late Sir Peers, C. R. in Archaeologia, lxii, 309,Google Scholar etc. The other beasts were 4 dragons, 6 lions, 5 harts, 4 yales, 6 panthers, 3 bulls, and 5 unicorns; they were of stone and cost 26s. each. The three beasts in the Inner (now the Clock) Court were of wood and cost only 5s. each.

^{page 144 note 3} Hope, W. H. St. J., Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, pp. 246–7.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 4} Published 1913, see pp. 44-45, 48, 56. See also , Peers, loc. citGoogle Scholar.

^{page 144 note 5} See ‘The King's Beasts on St. George's Chapel’ by the present writer in the Annual Report of the Friends of St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, for 1953. Whoever selected that series of beasts confused Henry VII's greyhound with the Nevile beast, but that is a point which is considered in more detail below.

^{page 144 note 6} The Queen's Beasts, p. 41; Royal Beasts, p. 38.

^{page 144 note 7} Probably the same (a Tudor ‘pre-fab.’!) which was made for use at the Field of Cloth of Gold a few years earlier, see above, p. 140, n. 4.

^{page 145 note 1} Hall's Chronicle, ed. 1809, p. 543; ed. 1550, fo. xxviijGoogle Scholar; Grafton's Chronicle, ed. 1809, p. 259Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 2} Items 18, 11, and 19. The artist is unidentified, and even his nationality is uncertain, but the style of the painting suggests a Flemish or Low German origin.

^{page 145 note 3} The preponderance of greyhounds is particularly interesting, and it was that very preponderance which led me to devote so much time and space to these paintings. I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Martin Holmes and Mr. J. L. Nevinson for very interesting comments thereon. Mr. E. Croft Murray and Dr. C. E. Wright of the British Museum have also been most helpful in this connexion.

^{page 145 note 4} This parallel seems the more interesting as the carved wooden crests used at funerals would naturally be supplied by the same craftsmen as the beasts for the tents.

^{page 145 note 5} Manners and Customs, iii, pl. viij. I owe this reference to Mr. Holmes.

^{page 145 note 6} Published by the Society and described in Archaeologia, iii, pp. 252, etc.

^{page 146 note 1} In imitation of this the greyhounds reinstated on the roof of St. George's Chapel in 1925 have collars charged with roses alternating with small studs. In Regal Heraldry, pl. xv, Willement shows the greyhound with a blue collar, but in the original painting which he purports to reproduce (Royal MS. 8 G. 7, fo. 1) the beast wears the usual red collar with gold studs, etc.

^{page 146 note 2} The leash which hangs from the greyhound's collar on the bridge at Hampton Court is an erroneous addition, as will appear below.

^{page 146 note 3} Anstis, Register of the Garter, i, p. 410, note u, citing the original patent then in his possession. Walker made little use of this grant, for in February 1649 Charles II gave him a new patent which replaced the greyhound on the cross by five leopard's faces of gold (ibid. pp. 413-14).

^{page 146 note 4} p. 464. The original edition was published by Sandford himself in 1677. The 1707 edition, which is cited in this paper, was revised and enlarged by Samuel Stebbing, Somerset Herald. Sandford in the passage here quoted calls Elizabeth's grandmother Anne, confusing her with her grand-niece, the wife of Richard III.

^{page 146 note 5} Op. cit. p. 64.

^{page 147 note 1} Regal Heraldry, pp. 59-60; Heraldic Notices of Canterbury Cathedral, 1827, pp. 40–42,Google Scholar 152; ‘The Roof-Bosses in Canterbury Cathedral’, by Cave, C. J. P.F.S.A., Archaeologia, lxxxiv, 1935, p. 61Google Scholar.

^{page 147 note 2} One is over the door leading from the choir to the south chapels; the other is in the passage through the choir screen.

^{page 147 note 3} Durham Seals, no. 3051.

^{page 147 note 4} See pp. 96 and 2 respectively; Banners etc., p. 10.

^{page 148 note 1} College of Arms MS. M. 14 Records, fo. 5, names the crowned red rose as a badge of Richmond.

^{page 148 note 2} Fo. 381^b. This manuscript, which is cited hereinafter as L. 14, was given to the College of Arms by Sir William Dugdale while Sandford was still a herald, though perhaps not until after the publication of his Genealogical History. The same passage occurs also in Bodleian MS. Ashm. 1121, p. 236, where it is said to be copied from a manuscript in the custody of Sir Christopher Hatton. It is remarkable that the folios noted by Ashmole against this and other passages are those of L. 14, but it is not yet possible to say whether the manuscript which Ashmole copied was the now L. 14, or a copy of L. 14, or merely some manu- script drawn from the same sources. Considering the friendship and close collaboration between Hatton and Dugdale (see , Wagner, Catalogue of English Medieval Rolls of Arms, p. 145Google Scholar and xxij-xxv) either of the first two suggestions is possible. A version of this portion of L. 14 with the same paintings but a shortened text was given by Sir William Segar, Garter, to James I in 1604, and is now MS. Harl. 6085; it is entitled ‘The Variation of the Armes and Badges of the Kings of England from the tyme of Brute untill this present yeare of our Lord 1604’. The script is a typical italic hand of the period, but its resemblance to that of the corresponding portions of L. 14 is so close (and the resemblance between the two sets of illustrations is even closer) that one wonders whether L. 14 was not written and limned by Segar, or at least under his direction, as a draft for Harl. 6085. Short accounts of the yale and bagwyn by the present writer will be found in The Coat of Arms, iii, 90 and 142.

^{page 148 note 3} Willement quoted this as proving that Henry VII got the beast through Margaret Beaufort (Regal Heraldry, p. 60, note). It is, however, doubtful whether Margaret ever used the greyhound. So far as I have been able to find the only beasts which she used are the eagle and the yale which she got from her father Sir John Beaufort II, duke of Somerset and earl of Kendal. On two different seals, one used before and one after 1485 (casts penes Soc. Ant.), her shield is supported by two yales, the eagle standing on top of the shield in the earlier case and behind it in the later. Two yales also support her arms in various places in Christ's and St. John's Colleges at Cambridge (see , Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, pp. 206,Google Scholar 209, 394-6, and Country Life, loc. cit.). It has been pointed out to me that the early sixteenth-century brass eagle lectern in the Chapel of Christ's College stands on four couched dogs. These, however, are made of a different alloy and may be an addition. In any case, even if they are meant for greyhounds, which is not certain, they are not by themselves sufficient evidence on which to argue that Lady Margaret used a greyhound as one of her beasts.

^{page 149 note 1} It is an interesting fact that the earldom was granted Bedford ‘cum armis integris comitatui, honori ac dominio de Richmond annexis’. The arms are not blazoned but it is clear that the coat meant is: Cheeky or and azure with a bordure of England and an ermine canton over all—see ‘The Arms of the Earldom of Richmond’ by the present writer in The Coat of Arms, iii, 241.

^{page 149 note 2} See the Victoria County History, North Riding of Yorkshire, i, 1–12;Google ScholarComplete Peerage, x, 821, etc. sub tit. Richmond.

^{page 150 note 1} Borderie, La, Histoire de Bretagne, iii, 299 quoted in Complete Peerage, x, 804, note h.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Inventaire des Sceaux…de I'Empire, no. 556.

^{page 150 note 3} Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Seals, nos. 12139 used in 1388 and 12138 used in 1391; Blair, Hunter, Northumberland and Durham Seals (reprinted from Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd ser., vols. xx, xxi), no. 576.Google Scholar The presence of the greyhounds on the 1388 seal proves that the beast was not acquired by Sir Ralph's marriage to Joan Beaufort (see pedigree A, pi. XLVII) for that marriage did not take place until 1397).

^{page 150 note 4} Brit. Mus. Cat. of Seals, no. 12141; Northumberland and Durham Seals, no. 578. Longstaffe, G. H. D. in his edition of Tonge's, Thomas1530 Visitation of the North (Surtees Soc. xli, 1863, p. 30)Google Scholar thought that the Nevile greyhound came from the FitzRandolphs.

^{page 150 note 5} Brit. Mus. Cat. no. 12140; Archaeologia, lxxxix, pl. IX (a); Northumberland and Durham Seals, no. 577.

^{page 150 note 6} British Museum, Catalogue of British Seal Dies, no. 27 and pl. III; Cat. of Seals, no. 1050; Archaeologia, vii, 69 and xlvi, 366; , Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen, p. 59Google Scholar.

^{page 151 note 1} John of Gaunt's Register 1372-6, Camden Soc. 3rd ser., xxj, 1911, no. 915.Google Scholar I have to thank Miss Margaret Galway for bringing this to my notice.

^{page 151 note 2} Ibid. no. 1124. A ‘botoner’ is a set of buttons.

^{page 151 note 3} John of Gaunt's Register 1379-83, Camden Soc. 3rd ser., Ivj, 1937, no. 556.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 4} Nichols, J. G., Royal Wills, 1780, pp. 156–7.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 5} , Wyon, op. cit. p. 37,Google Scholar pl. x, no. 63. Sandford does not illustrate this seal.

^{page 151 note 6} Ibid. no. 65.

^{page 151 note 7} Ibid. pp. 41, 43, 47, 56, 57, pl. xi, nos. 67, 71, XIII, nos. 77, 79, and xiv, nos. 81, 83.

^{page 152 note 1} This is seen most clearly on the impression attached to Harleian charter 43 E. 51 in the British Museum. Other impressions are on Harl. ch. 43, F. 1 and Cotton ch. viij. 13. There are also impressions in the Public Record Office and casts of both seals are in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries, but in none of those are the bulls so clear as on Harl. ch. 43, E. 51.

^{page 152 note 2} City of London Letter Book H, ff. cviij, cxxix, quoted by Riley, H. T., Memorials of London, 1868, pp. 429, 443Google Scholar.

^{page 152 note 3} Patent Roll 50 Ed. Ill, p. 1, m. 7, 2 July (1376); Rymer, 1830, iii, part 2, p. 1056. The belt is thus described in the patent: ‘un seinture d'or et de perles ove neof barres d'or ovesque eegles blancz et entre chescun barre un leverer d'or ove un scochon de gris oept barres de perles en chescun barre douze grosse perles.’

^{page 152 note 4} The O.E.D. defines a kennet or kenet (O.F. chienet, a little chien) as a small dog used in hunting. The word is found from the thirteenth century onwards. The Boke of St. Albans (1486) includes ‘kenettys’ among the ‘diverse maner houndis’ (dorse of leaf signed f. iiij), but these are not mentioned in Holme's, RandleAcademy of Armory (Bk. II, c. ix)Google Scholar which suggests that the word had gone out of use before 1688. In Charles's Roll, a painted roll compiled c. 1285, no. 101, Pers de Kenette bears Gules, three dogs argent. Perceval in editing this roll called the dogs ‘talbots running’ (Archaeologia, xxxix), and Foster called them ‘talbots on the scent’ ( Some Feudal Coats of Arms, 1902, p. 121).Google Scholar It was left to Oswald Barron to identify them as kennets (Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. Heraldry). The association of the kennets with the greyhound on these cups makes me wonder whether they may not have been what are now called whippets or something similar. I must, however, admit that the kennets in Charles's Roll are more like talbots than whippets. Their posture is unusual and is well described by Foster's phrase ‘on the scent’.

^{page 153 note 1} Nichols, J. G., Royal Wills, 1780, pp. 112–13-14.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} Arch. Journ. liv, 1897, p. 291.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Wylie, J. H., History of England under Henry IV, iv, 1898, pp. 194,Google Scholar 196, citing a manuscript in the Public Record Office, Q.R. Wardrobe 68/1.

^{page 154 note 2} i.e. babewynery or baboonery, probably used here in the sense of grotesques.

^{page 154 note 3} One of the jewels taken over by Henry IV and pawned in 1400 was a livery collar of the duke of York, ‘Item j. livere de Due’ de Everwyk' ove vij. linkettz et vj. faucons blancs d'or aymellez, pois’ v. unc' (Palgrave, item 231; , Wylie, op. cit. p. 196).Google Scholar J. G. Nichols suggested that ‘linkettz’ may be a clerical error for lokets, i.e. fetterlocks (‘On Collars of the Royal Livery’, p. 18). In view of the frequent association of the falcon and the fetterlock that seems a plausible suggestion, but it is no less possible that the ‘linkettz’ were merely links joining the falcons together.

^{page 155 note 1} Chronicon Adae de Usk, edit. Sir Thompson, E. Maunde, 2nd edit. 1904, pp. 25, 173.Google Scholar In this connexion it is worth recalling the story of the greyhound, Math, which was King Richard's inseparable companion only to desert him a little before his enforced abdication when it attached itself no less closely to Henry. The story is told, though with some variation in the details, both by Adam (pp. 41, 196) and by Froissart (Johnes's translation, 1844, ii, 692).

^{page 155 note 2} Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 1989, fo. 18, quoted by Maunde Thompson, ibid.

^{page 155 note 3} The Inventories of St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, 1384-1667, ed. Bond, M. F. (Historical Monographs relating to St. George's Chapel, Windsor, 1947), pp. 44–45,Google Scholar no. 84 from the inventory of 1384: ‘Item de dono Regis Henrici quarti j. vestimentum blodij coloris intextum cum albis canibus.’

^{page 155 note 4} Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} Heraldic Notices of Canterbury Cathedral, p. 51.

^{page 156 note 2} In lectures on the Royal Arms, in the above-cited paper on the roof-bosses in St. George's Chapel, and in The Queen's Beasts, 1954, p. 44Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 3} Henry IV's other son, John, duke of Bedford, is not known to have used a greyhound as his beast. His favourite badge was the racine, root or uprooted treestump, and the only supporters for which I have found any evidence are the eagle and yale, the same which were afterwards taken by his successor in the earldom of Kendal, Sir John Beaufort II.

^{page 156 note 4} See The Antiquaries Journal, xxxiv, 1954, p. 238.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} Brit. Mus. MS. Lans. 874, fo. 113^b cited and the sketches reproduced in The Topographer and Genealogist, i, 1846, p. 59Google Scholar; Coll. Arm. MS. L. 14, fo. 105^b; Bodleian MS. Ashm. 1121, p. 228. Greenwich church fell down in 1710.

^{page 157 note 1} Richard of Coningsburgh, for example, bore France and England quarterly in a silver border charged with purple lions, and Thomas Beaufort bore'France and England quarterly in a border gobony of silver and France.

^{page 157 note 2} Doyle's Official Baronage; Fox-Davies, A. C., ‘Is the Red Dragon Welsh after all?’ in The Genealogical Magazine, vi, 1902, p. 239.Google Scholar Neither work cites any authority.

^{page 157 note 3} Archaeologia, lxxxix, pl. XVII(a); Brit. Mus. Cat. of Seals, no. 12093. Blair, Hunter in Northumberland and Durham Seals, no. 554Google Scholar miscalled the dexter supporter an antelope. The shield on that seal bears the undifferenced royal arms impaling Nevile, and this use of the undifferenced royal arms is notable, for although Cecily's son was king, her husband was not.

^{page 158 note 1} The matrix of Sir Richard's seal is in the Guildhall Museum, London. Casts both of it and of Elizabeth's seal are in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries. On Sir Richard's seal the powdering of roundels extends to the very tips of the hounds' tails so that these look almost as though they were wreathen like a unicorn's horn.

^{page 158 note 2} , Demay, Inventaire des Sceaux de la collection Clairambault, Paris, 1885, no. 9685.Google Scholar The arms both on this and on the Guildhall matrix are Wydevill (Argent, a fess and canton gules) quartering Prowes (Gules, an eagle or), The crest on the 1445 seal is described by Demay as a savage but it is probably meant, as also that on the Guild-hall seal, for the richly garbed warrior brandishing a scimitar which appears on Sir Richard's Garter Plate ( , Hope, Stall Plates of the Knights of the Garter, pl. lx)Google Scholar and on that of his son Sir Anthony, 2nd earl Rivers. The supporters on the 1445 seal Demay calls rams, but Dr. Paul Adam-Even kindly examined the seal for me and he reported that they are undoubtedly greyhounds.

^{page 158 note 3} , Demay, op. cit. no. 9684.Google Scholar This seal also was examined by Dr. Adam-Even who confirmed Demay's reading of the supporters as bears.

^{page 159 note 1} In Wrythe's Garter Armorial Sir Anthony's arms have as sinister supporter a nondescript creature which is white with a powdering of black roundels, but without collar or chain, no. 78. On this manuscript see , Wagner, Catalogue of English Medieval Rolls of Arms, p. 122.Google Scholar Whatever this beast is meant for it is quite unlike the clearly drawn greyhounds in other Tudor manuscripts. Moreover in College of Arms MS. L. 14, fo. 93^b, and in Bodleian MS. Ashm. 1121, fo. 225 (perhaps copied from L. 14) there is a drawing of the arms of Edward IV impaling Wydevill, which is said to have been tricked in 1602 from a north window in Westminster Abbey. Here the shield is supported by the king's white lion on the dexter and on the sinister by a cat-like creature with a boar's tushes and with a gold collar and chain. This too is white speckled with black roundels. It is evidently meant for a panther or a leopard, probably the former. In any case it is too carefully and precisely drawn to be a misreading or misrendering of the Wydevill greyhound. Moreover in discussing the point with Mr. L. E. Tanner, V-P.S.A., who by an odd coincidence had inadvertently blazoned the Ashm. 1121 version as a greyhound (Archaeologia, xciii, 162), he reminded me that Elizabeth Wydevill was a generous benefactor to the abbey, and opined that the achievement was probably a royal gift. In that event it would be the work of the King's Glazier, an official sure to be well informed on such matters. On the whole therefore it seems not unlikely that some time after Elizabeth's marriage to Edward IV she and her brother discarded the greyhound, with its strong Lancastrian associations, and replaced it by a panther, whilst retaining the spots which are such a prominent feature alike on the seals and in the manuscripts. It is perhaps not irrelevant that both the greyhound and the panther were royal beasts.

^{page 159 note 2} Broken seal attached to Brit. Mus. Add. ch. 365 (Catalogue, no. 13809) and to a charter among the Kettle-thorpe (Lines.) muniments communicated to the Royal Archaeological Institute in 1864 (Arch. Journ. xxi, 257).

^{page 159 note 3} Historical Notices of the parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme by Napier, H. A., 1858, p. 127,Google Scholar citing an inventory among the Ewelme Aims-Houses muniments.

^{page 159 note 4} College of Arms MS. Vincent 153, p. 208.

^{page 159 note 5} The Visitation of Oxfordshire, Harl. Soc. v, 117.

^{page 160 note 1} Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5804, fo. 3206. For later impressions of the same seal see Brit. Mus. Cat. of Seals, nos. 13073–4. There is also, among the collections for the New Dictionary of British Arms at the Society of Anti- quaries, a note by the late Sir W. St. J. Hope that an impression of the same seal in the Public Record Office is attached to a document dated 12 Ric. II, 1389-90. The reference is, however, omitted and it has not yet been possible to trace the document or to verify the date. The point is, however, unimportant and does not affect the argument in the text for in 1389 Anne of Gloucester's husband was Beatrice's eldest nephew, Thomas, earl of Stafford 1386-92. The anchor which surmounts the shield on this seal is so prominent that it must have some significance, but what that may be I have failed to discover.

^{page 160 note 2} Sandford 234. Both Humphrey and later dukes sometimes sealed with: Quarterly, 1. Woodstock; 2. Bohun of Hereford; 3. Bohun of Northampton; 4. Stafford.

^{page 160 note 3} Coll. Arm. MS. I. 2, p. 115; Banners etc. p. 147; ‘Wriothesley's Funeral Banners’, Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 45132, p. 84. Nowadays Lord Hereford's beast has become a talbot, but in those two manuscripts it is certainly drawn as a greyhound.

^{page 161 note 1} Heraldry British and Foreign, 1892, p. 605; 1896, ii, 236.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Brit. Mus. Cat. of Seals, no. 8689; MS. penes Dr. H. Bowditch, F.S.A., lxv, 19.

^{page 161 note 3} Sir Nicolas, N. H., History ofthe Orders of Knighthood, iii,Google Scholar Order of the Bath, p. 62, art. xviij.

^{page 161 note 4} Pine, John, Procession of the Order of the Bath, 1730, pl. VI.Google Scholar I have to thank Mr. J. L. Nevison, F.S.A. for calling my attention to this badge.

^{page 161 note 5} Wheeler-Holohan, V., The History of the King's Messengers, 1935, pp. 130–3.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} It is examined in more detail in The Coat of Arms, iii, 327-9.

^{page 162 note 2} , Wheeler-Holohan, op. cit. p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} Ibid. pp. 7, 8.

^{page 162 note 4} Ibid. pp. 134 sqq.

^{page 162 note 5} Since this paper was written Miss Margaret Galway has called my attention to the passage in Froissart's Le Paradis d'Amour where the poet dreams that he is at the court of King Amours ( , Froissart, Poésies, ed. Scheler, A., Brussels, 1870-1872, i, pp. 1–52,Google Scholar lines 860-920). If, as is generally agreed, Amours is meant for Edward III the prominence of white greyhounds at and near the Court confirms that these were one of Edward's royal beasts, and moreover shows that they were white, a point on which evidence had hitherto eluded me.