Notes and Queries/Series 5/Volume 11/Number 279/Arms on the Stalls in the Cathedral at Haarlem

by J. Woodward

Arms on the Stalls in the Cathedral at Haarlem (5^th S. ix. 61, 101, 413, 451, 471, 497; xi. 269, 318.)—I should feel grateful to D. P. for his correction of my “misunderstanding” with regard to the arms of Guelders, if that “misunderstanding” had any existence except in his own imagination. D. P. does not appear to be aware that although, as he quite correctly says, the arms referred to contain two distinct coats—those of Guelders and Juliers—they are yet constantly referred to in their united condition as the arms of the duchy or province of Guelders. They are so in a modern Dutch heraldic work of the highest authority now lying before me, no reference being there made to the fact, well known to every tyro in heraldry, that a portion of the coat was assumed for Juliers. Spener says, “Geldriæ insignia sunt duo in bipertito scuto se respicientes leones,” &c., as I blazoned them, though he does go on to say (what it seemed to me perfectly unnecessary to refer to in my brief note) that one of the lions was assumed for Juliers. Not long ago, in Paris, a gentleman politely directed my attention to the fact that in a certain place were visible what he termed “les armoiries de l’Angleterre.” The shield really contained the quartered coats of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and so (strictly speaking) was not the arms of England, but those of the united kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. But I did not think it necessary to assume that the French gentleman was ignorant of this fact simply because he called the whole arrangement by its conventional name, though, instead of thanking him for his politeness, I might have pointed out “a misunderstanding of his,” and displayed at one and the same time his very painful inaccuracy and my own highly superior knowledge. It is, however, pleasant to be assured that D. P.’s confidence in my powers of observation, and in my general honesty of description, still survives the shock which I appear to have inflicted upon him; and that, upon the whole, he has “no doubt that Mr. Woodward has related them faithfully.” Of such kind patronage I feel myself all unworthy; for I am not quite so confident myself. There are one or two little points with regard to which I have already had to correct my own report, and one or two more where I have had a little doubt whether my transcription of some travel-worn pencil notes was quite so faithful as I intended it to be. Had D. P. addressed himself to these, it is conceivable that some addition might have been made to our knowledge, and it is certain that in this case no one would have welcomed his correction of my “misunderstanding” more thankfully and respectfully than myself. J. Woodward.