Quartering

[bearkat]

I have come across a coat of arms made up of 4 different coats of arms - one in each quarter.

I have identified each of these 4 coats of arms but is their position significant?

The family name is in quarter 1 (top left as you look at it).

[Kiltpin]

I have come across a coat of arms made up of 4 different coats of arms - one in each quarter.

I have identified each of these 4 coats of arms but is their position significant?

The family name is in quarter 1 (top left as you look at it).

 

Yes and no. 

If the arms are ancient, that is to say they have been in use in that configuration for 3 generations they are then called indivisible arms and the 4 become one. All 4 are treated as if they were a single shield. 

If the arms are recent , then  they are usually thus - 

Armiger - 1 (top left)
His Wife - 2 (top right)
His Mother - 3 (bottom left)
His Wife's Mother - 4 (bottom right) 

Then there are the variables - firstly this assumes that all the other parties are armigerous. 
Secondly that there are not more higher ranking relatives lurking in the background. Marrying into the Royal Family always causes the Royal Arms to be present (usually 2 or 3). Likewise the non-royal dukes. 
Thirdly, influential relatives move up higher, poorer cousins move down (or out). 
Fourthly, if in doubt, add extra quarters - quarterly of 6, 8, 10 or 12. The largest number of known quartering is 117. 

So yes, there is a formula, but families often fall out with different parts and shields are removed. 

The thing to remember is that the eldest son is entitled to inherit the undifferenced arms of his father - that is to say the first quarter on its own. And that is what he will pass on to his eldest son - all the rest is variable. 

Regards

Chas

[KGarrad]

There is an extreme example in a Heraldry Society article on quartering:

https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/quartering/

744 by my count! But I suspect that is a European example?

[bearkat]

Thank you for your replies. I knew heraldry wasn't an exact science.

Armiger - 1 (top left)
His Wife - 2 (top right)
His Mother - 3 (bottom left)
His Wife's Mother - 4 (bottom right)

gives me something to work with.

I am very grateful that I only have 4 to worry about.  They are all I have to go on as this is pre parish records and I can find no pedigrees.

[Stephen J F Plowman]

In English heraldry the use of quarters is optional.  You can use the paternal Arms alone or a selection of inherited quarters.  The only caveat is that if you inherit Arms that were already quartered you have to include those quarters that brought them.  By way of example:



I can display my Plowman Arms (1st & 4th) with those of Gollop (2nd & 3rd) or I can display my Plowman Arms (1st & 4th) with Gollop (2nd) and the bear passant for Gollop2* (3rd).  What I cannot do is display Plowman with the Gollop2 bear in 2nd & 3rd because they came via the Gollop.

In Scotland, the display of quarters is regulated by Lord Lyon, any additions or changes are required to be duly matriculated.

* The Harleian Society’s Visitation of Dorset 1677 (published 1977) the Arms are recorded as “Quarterly: 1 and 4, Gules on a bend or a lion sable; 2 and 3, Azure, a bear passant argent”.  However, the bear passant seems to be the only occurrence in the College of Arms records and is "unidentified".

[bearkat]

It's very confusing!

[ThrelfallYorky]

What a good job almost none of mine ever had any!

[davidbappleton]

There is an extreme example in a Heraldry Society article on quartering:

https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/quartering/

744 by my count! But I suspect that is a European example?

Not European; English. The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.

David

[Arvanitakis]

In theory you should be able to read a shield, left-right, top-bottom and they should be in the order in which they were acquired. Paternal arms in the dexter chief i.e. top left.

Each quarter represents an heraldic heiress