A new crest for wikipedia

[Vigilant]

Some comments that run the range of the normal distribution.

[Wer900]

Maybe Hex, with his admin abilities, can change the Wikipedia logo photo to this one.

[The Joy]

When I grow up, I'm going to Wikipedia University!

[Ming]

The state of Maryland would like the half of the Calvert arms you appropriated.

[Mancunium]

@Vigilant Pursuivant:

Good one.

And the heraldry is better than most of the awful heraldic travesties in Wikimedia Commons, which pain me to look at, and are often just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

This piece of crap, for instance, link, which was thrown together by someone who didn't even know what a "bordure", one of heraldry's most common and important charges, is; or even what it looks like.

Granted, heraldry is a field for specialists, and there are a lot of perfectly well-educated people who know nothing about it. But why do unqualified amateurs feel compelled to write and illustrate an encyclopedia of heraldic ignorance, which is worse than useless as a reference?

[Anroth]

Granted, heraldry is a field for specialists, and there are a lot of perfectly well-educated people who know nothing about it. But why do unqualified amateurs feel compelled to write and illustrate an encyclopedia of heraldic ignorance, which is worse than useless as a reference?

I suspect this is more a copyright/image sourcing issue rather than a competence one.

[Woden.Ragnarok]

Surely the problem with both these attempts is that they really lack enough pornography to sum up wikipedia. You could at least fit a Penis self pic in there or perhaps make the shield shaped like a breast?

[Ming]

@Vigilant Pursuivant:

Good one.

And the heraldry is better than most of the awful heraldic travesties in Wikimedia Commons, which pain me to look at, and are often just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

This piece of crap, for instance, link, which was thrown together by someone who didn't even know what a "bordure", one of heraldry's most common and important charges, is; or even what it looks like.

Granted, heraldry is a field for specialists, and there are a lot of perfectly well-educated people who know nothing about it. But why do unqualified amateurs feel compelled to write and illustrate an encyclopedia of heraldic ignorance, which is worse than useless as a reference?

"Quarterly, first and fourth, argent, three lozenges conjoined in fess, gules, within a border, sable, for Montagu; second and third, or, an eagle displayed, vert, beaked and membered, gules, for Monthermer." It lacks supporters, crest and motto, but for instance it's essentially the same as Cracroft's depiction. Ming's Burke's is at home but he doubts that it's going to be significantly different.

[Mancunium]

"Quarterly, first and fourth, argent, three lozenges conjoined in fess, gules, within a border, sable, for Montagu; second and third, or, an eagle displayed, vert, beaked and membered, gules, for Monthermer." It lacks supporters, crest and motto, but for instance it's essentially the same as Cracroft's depiction. Ming's Burke's is at home but he doubts that it's going to be significantly different.
-Ming

Ming's blazon is correct, but a bordure is the space between two equidistant lines, one on the edge of the arms, and the other towards its centre; it is not a frame that is significantly wider on its sides than on its top and bottom. This is really elementary, and ignorance of this fact results in meaningless ugliness (imho).

Cracroft's Peerage is totally unreliable crap, which is why its WP article was deleted-- the only fairly reliable parts were lifted from old editions of Burke's and Debrett's, and the rest is based on what people have mailed to him or what he reads in the newspapers-- and yet WP still cites him as an authority on living people. And his version of The Duke of M's arms is hideous, as are all his drawings. That thing clinging to the dexter side of Cracroft's version of Montagu's arms is supposed to be an heraldic antelope...

Montagu is happy to learn that Ming has Burke's P&B in his library.

You should study the Peerage, Gerald. It is the one book a young man about town should know thoroughly, and it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done.

[Hex]

This piece of crap, for instance, link, which was thrown together by someone who didn't even know what a "bordure", one of heraldry's most common and important charges, is; or even what it looks like.

Yes, well, you have managed to pick a particularly atrocious example. By contrast, you also get people like Heralder(T-C-F-L), who make things like this.

why do unqualified amateurs feel compelled to write and illustrate an encyclopedia of heraldic ignorance, which is worse than useless as a reference?

You don't particularly need to include the word "heraldic" in that question....

[Ming]

Montagu is happy to learn that Ming has Burke's P&B in his library.

Ming made it down into the basement to crack upon our Burke's (I think it's a late '40s edition, don't recall) and finds that it doesn't list this particular Montagu line, but only one branch which quarters this with some other arms (forgot who, don't really care anyway). Their images are little hand-scrawn things that are no better than this, so I'm not too bent on the lack of perfection of the WP version.

[The Joy]

[lilburne]

[Hex]

[SB_Johnny]

Of course, when discussing Wikipedians like Russavia, "Cavity Creeps" acquires a whole new meaning...

[Vigilant]

Of course, when discussing Wikipedians like Russavia, "Cavity Creeps" acquires a whole new meaning...

I was thinking Demiurge1000.

[Mancunium]

Montagu is happy to learn that Ming has Burke's P&B in his library.

Ming made it down into the basement to crack upon our Burke's (I think it's a late '40s edition, don't recall) and finds that it doesn't list this particular Montagu line, but only one branch which quarters this with some other arms (forgot who, don't really care anyway). Their images are little hand-scrawn things that are no better than this, so I'm not too bent on the lack of perfection of the WP version.

Ming was probably looking at the Arms of Montagu of Beaulieu. The Wikipedia article about him focuses mainly on his penis, and speculates about what he may or may not have done with it. link

On two occasions Lord Montagu was charged and committed for trial at Winchester Assizes, firstly in 1953 for allegedly taking sexual advantage of a 14-year-old Boy Scout at his beach hut on the Solent, a charge he has always denied.[1] When prosecutors failed to achieve a conviction, in what Lord Montagu has characterised as a "witch hunt" to secure a high-profile conviction, he was arrested again in 1954 and charged with performing "gross offences" with an RAF serviceman during a weekend party at the beach hut, located on Lord Montagu's country estate. Lord Montagu has always maintained he was innocent of this charge as well ("We had some drinks, we danced, we kissed, that's all.")[2] Nevertheless, he was imprisoned for twelve months for "consensual homosexual offences" along with Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood.[3

Nobody is required to provide an passable image of their Coat of Arms to Wikimedia Commons, I believe; and in creating their ugly version of Mancunium's the Wikimedia Foundation has committed a theft. The Arms of Englishmen and of Scots are private property, and may not be displayed without permission. That the WMF has not yet been taken to court on this issue is no guarantee that they will not be at a later date.

I would refer their legal counsel to this helpful WP article on the High Court of Chivalry: link

Her Majesty's High Court of Chivalry of England and Wales is a civil court in England. It has had jurisdiction in cases of the misuse of heraldic arms since the fourteenth century.

The sole judge is now the hereditary Earl Marshal of England, the Duke of Norfolk, though he normally delegates his responsibility to a professional lawyer as his Surrogate. Before 1521, the Lord High Constable of England also presided, but that office was abolished as a permanent institution (it is "revived" only for a Coronation).

The court was last convened in 1954 for the case of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd [1955] P 133; [1955] 1 All ER 387; prior to this, the Court had not sat for some centuries and before hearing the case, the Court first had to rule whether it still existed.[1] The Palace theatre displayed the arms of Manchester City Council both inside and on its seal and this usage implied that it was linked with the City's Council. The City Council had requested that the theatre cease the usage and had met with refusal. The court ruled in favour of Manchester City Council.

More recently, in Oct 2012, Aberystwyth Town Council declared its intention to take legal action against a Facebook page displaying unauthorised use of its coat of arms: these were subsequently removed.[2]

Historically, the court was also known as Curia Militaris, the Court of the Constable and the Marshal, and the Earl Marshal's Court.[3]

In Scotland, these types of cases are heard in the Court of the Lord Lyon, which is a standing civil and criminal court, with its own Procurator Fiscal (Public Prosecutor) under the Scottish legal system.

Since 1832, appeals from the High Court of Chivalry are to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.[4] Before 1 February 1833, in common with the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts, appeal from the Court was to the Crown in Chancery, with appeals being heard by Commissioners appointed by letters patent under the Great Seal in each case.[5] Sittings by these Commissioners became known as the "High Court of Delegates" by the time of the 1832 Act.[6]

I advise Jimbo to read the whole article.

[EricBarbour]

The Arms of Englishmen and of Scots are private property, and may not be displayed without permission. That the WMF has not yet been taken to court on this issue is no guarantee that they will not be at a later date.

I would refer their legal counsel to this helpful WP article on the High Court of Chivalry: .....

I advise Jimbo to read the whole article.

Don't worry, he won't. No one at the WMF will either. Your best course of action would be to contact this High Court, and
show them a list of coats-of-arms on Commons. Hopefully they will make a stern phone call to WMUK, and Jon will have
to pretend to do something. (I'm not optimistic that anything will happen.)

[Mancunium]

I should have thought that the WMF's counsel studied this site on daily basis. The Foundation has a fiduciary duty to seek and to consider all prudent advice. link

In English common law the fiduciary relation is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. In the United Kingdom, the Judicature Acts merged the courts of equity (historically based in England's Court of Chancery) with the courts of common law, and as a result the concept of fiduciary duty also became available in common law courts.

When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from his fiduciary position without knowledge and consent.

While there are many lawyers who would be thrilled at the opportunity to test the laws of chivalry, I'm sure the WMF would find it ruinous to take a case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and humiliating to make the inner workings and personnel of WM Commons a public spectacle.

[Vigilant]

The Arms of Englishmen and of Scots are private property, and may not be displayed without permission. That the WMF has not yet been taken to court on this issue is no guarantee that they will not be at a later date.

I would refer their legal counsel to this helpful WP article on the High Court of Chivalry: .....

I advise Jimbo to read the whole article.

Don't worry, he won't. No one at the WMF will either. Your best course of action would be to contact this High Court, and
show them a list of coats-of-arms on Commons. Hopefully they will make a stern phone call to WMUK, and Jon will have
to pretend to do something. (I'm not optimistic that anything will happen.)

I think a more direct approach would work.
Have a friend find you some ex-SAS guys that could drop by at the next WMUK meeting and have a quick chat with the members there.

[Mancunium]

You always have excellent ideas, Vigilant, and you always know what you're talking about.

I have left enough links here to eventually lead the inquirer to more and more unsettling information about my military service, and the work I am now engaged in. From my Talk page:

He was born in Australia. British Father the Duke , Australian Mother a "Commonner" He got Caught up in the "Bottom of the Harbour Scandal" Says he was in the Australian Army. Moved to USA. Did security and liaison work for British Royal Family. His father sued his grandfathers Estate which was left in trust to "Lord Alexander"
OutbackOZ Mar 13th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.231.80 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP assures its readers that this true.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

One must assume that WP, having displayed this information for more than four years, exercised due diligence. link

Information about royal security measures, including the identities of personnel assigned to such duties, is for obvious reasons never disclosed; it is, in fact, illegal to do so.

[Vigilant]

You always have excellent ideas, Vigilant, and you always know what you're talking about.

Why do I get the feeling you're having me on?

Go on, pull the other one.

[Mancunium]

Take a complement, Vigilant.
Your anger resonates with mine.

It was your brilliant work on Quorty and Little green rosetta that inspired me, and instructed me how, to take my cyber-stalking of WP characters like Andy Dingley and Gareth Kegg well past page 3 of Google search results, and to make the fascinating connections of those results to other online information.

I also admire your sense of humour, what you have chosen to reveal about yourself here, the absence of BS in your self-presentation, and your keen intelligence.

You are the heart and soul of WO.

[Smiley]

I also admire your sense of humour, what you have chosen to reveal about yourself here, the absence of BS in your self-presentation, and your keen intelligence.

You are the heart and soul of WO.

+1

I only dragged myself online 18 months ago, and first heard the word 'trolling' less than three months ago. Perusing WO sure has been educational, not to mention wildly amusing.

Like Mancunium, this is the first forum that I've ever posted to; unfortunately, I sit at the opposite end of the social spectrum and will be losing my net-connection early next month due to lack of finances. I shall miss the place keenly, but I really do need to work on my tan.

[Hex]

why don't you just get somebody to replace the crap version of the arms with a good one?

Never mind, I already did.



Unfortunately there seems to be a bug in Commons' PNG renderer preventing the text of the motto from appearing, but I can assure you that it's there if you look at the full-size file. I'll find out what's going on with that.

Not having a copy of Burke's, I had to work from Cracroft (boo, hiss?), which didn't say anything about the mantling, so I improvised that part - it may well be wrong. Please advise if so. Please also note that this is the first time I've done this, so there may be bugs.

[Mancunium]

Arms are incorporeal hereditaments, and are private property in any jurisdiction which has an heraldic authority. link

Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are hereditary titles of honor or dignity, heritable titles of office, coats of arms, Prescriptive Barony, rights of way, tithes, advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as from goods and chattels or movable property.

In Canada, where this has been tested in the Supreme Court, the blazon of an Achievement of Arms is copyright-protected, and not just exemplifications thereof. link

9.(1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...

(n.1) any armorial bearings granted, recorded or approved for use by a recipient pursuant to the prerogative powers of Her Majesty as exercised by the Governor General in respect of the granting of armorial bearings, if the Registrar of Trade-marks has, at the request of the Governor General, given public notice of the grant, recording or approval...

(2) Nothing in this section prevents the adoption, use or registration as a trade-mark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark: (a) described in subsection (1) with the consent of Her Majesty or such other person, society, authority or organization as may be considered to have been intended to be protected by this section.

In Scotland, what WP Commons is doing is a criminal offence. link

The protection of the rights to arms is of signal importance because of the fact that persons and corporation have paid fees to the Crown in return for exclusive rights to use those armorial bearings. A coat of arms can only belong to one particular person at a time. Without such protection, a coat of arms would be useless as a form of identification and worthless as a piece of private property.Furthermore, a misappropriation or unauthorised use (displaying or usurping) of a man's coat of arms is still considered a 'real injury' under Scottish common law.[2]

Accordingly an owner of a Scottish coat of arms may obtain a judicial order in the Court against anybody using his arms.
...
The Lyon Court, like all Scottish courts has a public prosecutor; styled 'Procurator Fiscal to Lyon Court', who is independently appointed by the Scottish Ministers. He raises proceedings, when necessary, against those who improperly usurp armorial bearings. The punishment for this offence is set out in several Scottish statutes acts. The court has the power to fine and to ensure items bearing the offending Arms are removed, destroyed or forfeited.
[

Analogous laws in England are still on the books. The High Court of Chivalry case in 1954 was held precisely to demonstrate this fact.

The court was last convened in 1954 for the case of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd [1955] P 133; [1955] 1 All ER 387; prior to this, the Court had not sat for some centuries and before hearing the case, the Court first had to rule whether it still existed.[1]

Instead of making silly pseudo-legal threats, why don't you just get somebody to replace the crap version of the arms with a good one?
-Hex

I made no silly pseudo-threats. I was giving advice I had hoped would be passed on to the WMF.

I like you, Hex, but you obviously think that a Coat of Arms is a drawing on a piece of paper; the crap "version" in Commons is not the point. Any representation of personal Arms is protected as private property in the UK. Unfortunately, it is typical of WP editors to believe that their education is complete, that they understand things they do not, and to think that everyone harmed by WP has a duty to either surrender their rights and collaborate, or retain counsel. If WP did not chase away everyone with actual knowledge, it would be informative.

[Hex]

Unfortunately your understanding of the law seems to be brutally flawed, and I can see that while not even remotely being a lawyer. Oh well.

[Mancunium]

Hex, thank you. I've only just seen your drawing, and I'm really impressed by your work, and by your kindness in creating a new representation of my personal authority to illustrate my increasingly-defamatory BLP.

I have played with Sodacan's (what are they called-- vector images?) myself. He has some minor difficulties. Because you requested advice:

1) Montagu of Manchester became the senior line of the family in 1749, upon the death of the 2nd Duke of Montagu, and ceased to use, as marks of difference, the collars (Argent three lozenges conjoined in fesse Gules) in both crest and sinister supporter.

2) The bordure Sable was adopted by Montagu of Boughton for practical reasons: to make the Standard of quarterly Argent and Or more visible against the sky; the Great West Doors oi Bath Abbey, for instance, do not use the bordure at all, although the Arms of Bishop Montagu, Lord Manchester and Lord Montagu of Boughton are otherwise meticulously differenced. A thick black border looks like the bearer is being punished for some sin of an ancestor.

3) Three lozenges conjoined in fesse should extend to the bordure. A fesse is a horizontal line stretching from one side to the other of a shield, and charges conjoined in fesse should touch the edge of the shield or its bordure.

4) Per a Warrant of the Earl Marshal, the heraldic depictions of Peers' coronets should not be adorned with representations of jewels or pearls. This tiny thing about Sodacan's strawberry leaves really bugs me.

5 ) The eagle displayed Vert of Monthermer should really fill the shield, and accommodate itself to the shape of the quarters; but this is a matter of artistic taste.

6) Likewise a matter of taste: it is cruel to force two majestic beasts to attempt a tightrope act on the edge of a piece of ribbon. Compartments are much nicer to look at, too.

As a general principle: these Arms predate the College of Arms by centuries, and are not subject to Garter. The Arms of dukes, in particular, are personally regulated by the Sovereign, although Garters persistently try to push their way into this business. Without being too technical, there are many other Arms I may lawfully use. Azure a griffin sergeant Or (Montagu Ancient), for instance, predates Montagu Modern, which was only settled on in about 1300. Those who think my Arms are not my personal business, and a matter between me and The Queen, are mistaken.

Like everyone else, I can use any motto I want and could change it every day, but "Disponendo me non mutando me" still suits me nicely.

The hiss-making thing about Patrick Cracroft-Brennan and his partner Lee Heung is their stupid arrogance. On 21 July 2011 they rewrote Mancunium's entry as follows: "The High Court ruled that they were legitimate, and Mr Justice Floyd said that there was 'absolutely no doubt that at the relevant times Wendy reasonably relieved that the marriage was valid' and the laws of Australia, California and England all allowed the children of bigamous marriages to be treated as legitimate. Lord Alexander Montagu is not in succession to the Dukedom of Manchester as he was born before his father had divorced his first wife. The heir presumptive to the Dukedom of Manchester is Lord Kimble Montagu, second son of the 12th Duke of Manchester and younger brother of the present Duke."

He then proceeded to degrade Alex Jr from the precedence of a duke's eldest son, and from the style and title of Viscount Mandeville -- but, oddly, conferred on him the courtesy title of "Lord Alexander". This is odd because, if Alex Jr is illegitimate, as Mr Cracroft-Brennan decreed and publicly proclaimed, then he and his sister would be untitled bastards. If Cracroft-Brennan is correct, Mancunium's marriage to their mother would have had to have been invalid in the law of any relevant jurisdiction, and no divorce from her would have been necessary.

There is, of course, no relevant jurisdiction in which one may adopt one's own legitimate children, and so Mancuniam could not even have made them his children by adoption -- which would, at least, have automatically entitled them to the same style and courtesy titles as the other children of dukes, pursuant to a Royal Warrant of 2004.

Cracroft is absurd, but it is on the internet, and it clearly states of itself that it is the only digital source that has accurate listings; and so, despite the many obvious errors of fact that I can see at a mere glance at my own family's entry, it must have more legal credibility than the United Kingdom's High Court of Justice. Its editor thinks that he has altered the succession to a dukedom, possibly for generations to come; he believes that he has stripped a gentleman of his title, and that he has created and granted, on his own authority, two new titles of nobility. He claims -- and is accepted by uninformed journalists to have -- powers and prerogatives greater than those of the Sovereign.

His own Cracroft's Peerage biography, which is as flattering as his photograph, makes it clear that Cracroft-Brennan has no qualifications to publish an online reference book on the Peerage, much less to present himself as an expert on Peerage law. The disclaimer on his own accountancy website (Banbury & Co.) reads: "We are not lawyers and cannot be held responsible should anyone act or decide not to act based on our interpretation of the law. We strongly urge clients to seek proper legal advice before embarking on any course of action."

I hope Dingley reads this. It will outrage him.

Thank you, again, for your beautiful gift.

[Vigilant]

Take a complement, Vigilant.
Your anger resonates with mine.

It was your brilliant work on Quorty and Little green rosetta that inspired me, and instructed me how, to take my cyber-stalking of WP characters like Andy Dingley and Gareth Kegg well past page 3 of Google search results, and to make the fascinating connections of those results to other online information.

I also admire your sense of humour, what you have chosen to reveal about yourself here, the absence of BS in your self-presentation, and your keen intelligence.

You are the heart and soul of WO.

Thank you very much.
I'm not often left speechless.

[Hex]

Alex, thanks for the feedback. I'm all graphics-ed out today, so will get on your suggested changes tomorrow.

This is an area I intend to learn much more about. You're obviously very well-educated on the topic, may I ask where from? I suspect that expert knowledge on heraldry is in short supply on Commons. While I don't think that a formal education in it is currently within my grasp, I shall try to accumulate some knowledge in the wrong way. I note also that my image is an achievement, not a coat of arms.

Per a Warrant of the Earl Marshal, the heraldic depictions of Peers' coronets should not be adorned with representations of jewels or pearls. This tiny thing about Sodacan's strawberry leaves real bugs me.

I can pass that on. Can you find the text online that I could link to it? I did a bit of searching but the closest I got was instructions from the Earl Marshal for the attire of peers at the coronation of Queen Victoria. Failing that, the formal title of the warrant would be helpful. I presume Sodacan has access to some sort of library.

Regarding Cracroft - what a horrible mess. I don't envy anyone subject to that sort of enterprise.

[Mancunium]

Thank you, Hex. I see that there are some courses on heraldry available, like this one link and this link,
but I don't think they are in any way necessary, or even authoritative. There are lots of books online which require only reading.

As you may know, there is both a Dukedom of Manchester and a Duchy of Manchester; the two are inseparable. The dukedom consist of incorporeal hereditaments, including the peerages, titles, privileges, precedence, and heraldic additaments of the duke. The duchy consists of corporeal hereditaments: the wealth held in trust for the benefit of the duke and his immediate family. In its current form the duchy was mostly funded by María Consuelo Iznaga del Valle y Clement, wife of the 8th duke, and Helena Zimmerman, wife of the 9th. They were both Americans; the office of the duchy has been located in New York City for almost a century, and its principle holding is now US real estate.

I believe I have a duty to pass both the incorporeal and the corporeal on with at least the same value as I found it, and I have made detailed inventories of both. This is the reason I know something about heraldry. What my successors want to do with all this is out of my control.

Warrants and Orders of the Earl Marshal are published in the London Gazette, which I am not able to search online, but the fact that the specific instructions are issued on the occasion of every coronation, as described here link suggests that the paper depictions should conform to the real objects, as do the coloured illustrations in this book link. I will search for something definitive when I am rested.

I am still uncertain about the correct use of smilies, but this should be taken as a smile.

[Hex]

Thanks for the links; I'd been looking at this one. I'll probably pick up the Oxford Guide to Heraldry as well, as that looks quite good, as well as a reprint of Fox-Davies. (I don't have the budget to buy an original at present, more's the pity.)

So how about this then? Note, the file has changed name; so my earlier post will now show the coat of arms only.



I see what you mean about the charges - extending them to fill the quarters looks far better! I gave the lower eagle a long tail following this example at Sidney Sussex. I note that Fox-Davies specifically refers to your Argent three lozenges combined as being fusils, though apparently they may be old enough to date from a time when "lozenge" and "fusil" were synonyms. I've rendered them as fusils in any case.

Incidentally, completely by accident, I came across this - did you know your arms are on George II's mortars at Yorktown, Virginia? Fascinating.

[Mancunium]

This is wonderful.

I had read that blog entry about the Yorkton mortars. Duke John did everything. He was Lord Proprietor and Captain General of the Islands of St Lucia and St Vincent, founder Great Master of the Order of the Bath, Lord High Constable of England, Master of the Great Wardrobe, Master-General of the Ordnance, General in the Army, Captain of the Honourable Band of Gentleman Pensioners, Colonel of The King's Own Troop of Horse Guards, Colonel of The Duke of Montagu's Regiment of Carabiniers, Governor of the Isle of Wight, Lord Lieutenant of the Counties of Warwick and Northhampton, Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England, and founder Governor of the London Foundling Hospital.

His WP biography, taken from Britannica, used to mention that he was known for his kindness -- notably to his hideous dog, which he loved because no one else would love it.

I believe you can see your image on my Facebook page, with the description "by Scott Martin".
link