Chris Green wrote:So the Van Riebeeck arms in the 1899 grant are not an inescutcheon but an "escocheon" hanging from a blue riband. An original (and unique?) method of including one CoA in another. If anyone can think of any other such ingenious methods of including one coat in another I shall split this off as a new thread.
In effect, the 1804 coat of arms (Van Riebeeck shield on anchor) was reduced to the level of a charge in the 1894 coat of arms. There are other examples of coats of arms, on escutcheons (however spelled), being used as charges in other arms, e.g.
* the Virginia Company's arms (1606) which displayed the cross of St George between four crowned shields respectively England/France, Scotland, ireland, and England/France (changed in 1707 to England/Scotland, France, ireland, and England/Scotland, and again in 1714 to England/Scotland, France, Ireland, and Hanover) (see Joseph McMillan's colourful illustrations at http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/i ... p?n=Roll.V )
* the Honourable East India Company's second arms which contained the cross of St George with "in the dexter chief quarter an escutcheon of the arms of France and England quarterly, the shield ornamented and regally crowned Or";
* the arms granted to Bermuda in 1910, which depict a lion holding what appears to be the shield of the former Bermuda Company's arms;
* the shield of arms of the English town of Margate incorporated as a charge into the arms of the South African town of the same name (I don't know whether the latter was a CoA grant).
