 Mae'r sgolwch yn gwybod ym mhwyaf, yn cymryd, yn cymryd yn cyfysgolio'r meddwl. Mae'r sgolwch yn y cyfyrdd yma yn y 18th Cymru, mae'n amlwg i'n gwneud am rhaid o'r cael cyfysgolio'r cyllid, o'r rhaid o'r lleol yn y 18th Cymru, a'r cyfysgolio'r lyfrion. Mae'n cefnod o'r 17th Cymru, maen nhw'n mynd i'r ysgolwysiaeth, ond o'r societyd yng Nghymru, a'r ystod o'r cyfnodau i'r ysgolwysiaeth, yn 1752, o'r ysgolwysiaeth, ysgolwysiaeth, Mr Adam Martin, sefydledd o'r 200 cyfnodau cyfnodau ar y Llywodraeth Arun. Y cyfnodau, wrth gwrs, mae'r cyfnodau cyfnodau o'r 10,000 cyfnodau cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau, rhan o'r ysgolwysiaeth, drwy'r cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau ysgolwysiaeth, a'r cyfnodau swyddogau. Rhyf o'r cyfnodau, yn 1868, mae'n cyhoedd o'r cyfnodau ac atigraffau. Felly, ac mae'n dwi'n dweud o'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau ar y Llywodraeth. Rhyf o'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau, cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau, ac yn ymddun i odd o ddwg hanes ar y ddechrau yma. A o'r rhaid, mae'r cyfrifwyr o'r ddysgwyl y gallwch yn cyfrifwyr i ddaethu'n cyfrifwyr, â'r gwestiadau ac amser o'r cyfrifwyr o'r cyfrifwyr a'r ddiddorol? Yn ymdun o'r cyfrifwyr o'r cyfrifwyr o'r cyfrifwyr Richard Rawl yn y ddweud ychydigol a ffaisio ar y cyfrifwyr a'r ddweud i ddweud i ddweud eu ddweud, ac yn y ddweud felly bydd yn ei wneud, yw'r rhaid, er mwyn yw'r gweld yn y cyfnodau eu hunain mewn gwirio iawn, gyda'u llwyr a chliwydau llwyr ymlaen. Rol yn ysgol yn ysgol cymhiliadau, rydyn ni'n nid i'w gweithio'r llwyr, a'r llwyr yn ymlaen. Yn ystod bydd yn oed y sgol'r cilograffi, Iím not sure that the story has been told out there, it was by the end of the 19th century a largely dry and largely descriptive activity. It yielded those large catalogs often lavishly illustrated, but it made little impact beyond the small community of enthusiasts. Then in the early 20th century HI, Thomas Tav Taiwanese, professor of history of amperter and then of Manchester realised that seals offered insights into ac ymddiolion a'r hyn dechrau ac yn ysgol iawn, ymddian nhw'n sgol a'r ydych chi'n fathau, ac mae'n gweithio i'r hyn yn dweud y cyffredinol bod yn y gywir yn ymgyrchol. Mae'r cyffredinol yn ymddiolion a'r cyllidau wedi'i yn ymgyrchol a'r hynny yn ysgol i'r oeddaf amdodd ac arddangos iddo'r ysgol. Ond yma, gyd-drygu'r ysgol yn ystod o'r griffau mewn meddwl oedd y brifoedd ac yn ymweld yn ddifenni'r ddodd ar 18th ysgolau. Rwy'n dŵr y llynu'r gyfoedd yn cael cyffredigol, mae'n gweld yn gyrddol yn gweithio'r ffordd fyddion ffans. Rwy'n rhaid o'r ffordd o'r ddodd, o'r ffordd och unconno yw oed yn ardal i'r ffordd iawn – o'r hwn ay chawwch yn anodd. Mae rhywbeth gyda'l yn mynd i chi i syl 그런iadau o'r cyflawn yn gofynol. Mae'r hystoriadau, rwy'n rhoi'n gweithio o'r ddysgu lleoedd yn y cyflawnedio eu adydigol y plwydol, blyned yn y llwygau, ychydigol, oed y Llywodraeth, oed yn y Llywodraeth, oedd yn y Llyfodraeth ynghylch yw unigol, ac oes yn enwys oed yn unrhyw oed yn ddygynnu. Rhaid adegwyddynt o'i gwirionedd mae'n gweithiau iawn wedi hawddau ar 안�odol o'r gwirioneddau, ac mae'r gweithio'n ce stamping ar gyfer yr adegwyddoedd. Sengyn i'r adegwyddoedd y cymdein iddyn nhw'n meddynu wedi gwirioneddau ar gweithio'r adegwyddoedd. Dyna, lefnod bunta'r llwyddiadau tyfngellion lleol yn ysgolu'r stugol. Trwy y penderfyniad yng Nghrifysgwrdd, oherwydd mae'n ddain'n clywed. Mae'r llwyddiad ddiwedd, fe y penderfyniad, os yddod yn gweithio'r adeg cael y syniadaufa ychydig i colleg. Mae'r llwyddiadau yn cael ei ddifeniadu mawr, yn gweithgoriadau, cael ei bethau, ddaith, haf, hyffordd, gyda'r gyda'r cyd-dyniad, i'r ffordd o'r polisiad cyllidol, cael bod yw hyffordd ac ar gyfer o bair. Yn y 18th yma, mae'n ddych chi'n ddigon dwi'n gwybod a'r llwythoedd yma, ond mae'n ddych chi'n ddillod i'r post. Ond mae'n ddillod gyda'r cyd-dyniad o'r cyd-dyniad wedi cael ei ddysgu'r ddechrau ar gyfer y ddysgu'r cyd-dyniad a'r ddysgu'r cyd-dyniad. Mae'r ystod yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth yn ymddangos i'r Llywodraeth Cymru, oherwydd mae'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn gweithio'r ystod yma ymddangos i gwyfyn. Mae'r ystod yn ei ffordd amdano i'r Llywodraeth Cymru, ond mae'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn gweithio'r ystod yma, mae'r ystod yn Edrydodd Edward Wills, yn ymddangos i'r bynnag yma yn Rhywunodraeth Cymru. Mae'r ystod yn ei ddweudio'r llwyntau lleidol yn siaradau. garbage made in lead used especially for sealing veils of wool and hemp but also of course there were bottle maker seals which also survived into the 18th century. These were seals which indicated volume, authenticity and acted as a commercial guarantee of quality. In the case of cloth ymlaen o'r ysgol, yn ymholudd o'r maen nhw er mwyn o'r maen nhw o bwysig i'w chael gwybod bydd yn yma. Rwy'n gŵr ffwrdd yr ysgol yn yma, ein gŵr yw'r awr o'r maen nhw, ac elwodd ar y cwrdd ffordd ymlaen nhw o bwysig i'w ddwy ffordd. Mae'r hefyd yn f SNF yn gymryd ymholwyddol er mwyn nhw frail. Mae'r llysigau Llywodraeth, ein Llywodraeth hyn yn ymgyrch yn tŷ, i'r llyfodol yng Nghymru, a ysgrifennu a'n adael bwysigau hasiol, y Llywodraeth, yn llywodraeth, y Llywodraeth. Mae cynnig ymarfer y gallu defnyddio, ariad, genedlaeth, frwać, esblygu, rysgyllfaeth, a'r llywodraeth cyfan. Mae'r llysigau Llywodraeth wediensa'r cyfan a'r llysigau Llywodraeth, ein Llywodraeth. ac, ymlaen cyflaenio i fod y botel a'r cwntes. Byw daeth ddigon ar goesyw y cws, when inns and breweries begun to add their seals to bottles, the bottom dropped out of this Conaseur high-end use of wine seals and they were less likely to be displayed in elite households. Bottle seals have been especially carefully examined by both the Museum of London and the B&A ofygoedd yma'r gwirnod y mynd i'w awtidio'r llifeddau geident yr unig. Mae'r Gweinwch yn cael eu gwirfod hyn yn ôl o'r wych i'w weld yn gynaysol cyd-rytau ar y Deyrnas Slywyr yn ddano i fy ystyried â gwirfod hynny. Mae'r gweinwch gennyrch yma'r gwaith yn gweithio cael eu drwng, gallwn byrwch i fynd i'r gwirfod wedi'i gwasanaethu'r cyd-rytau ar gyfer yn ddagoedd ..aeth o'r cyfnodio gyda'r cyfnodio ymgyrch... ..mwy fathau o'r cyfnodio, ac mae'n teimlo'r cyfnodio... ..y'r cyfnodio yma yn ddweud. Y 18rhaith, y ffob seilwyr hefyd yn ymwysydd.. ..a'r ffosiwn i gyd ymddangos. Ymddangos 3 ffob seilwyr, ac mae'n cael eu bod yn y gweithio... ..ynaeth ymddangos ymddangos eithaf... ..yna'i rhyblom, o'r cyfnodio... ac stradau'r gynhyrch iawn ei ddechrau'r popeth. Felly, byddai'n dweud pobllewis cyfrun, oherwydd defnyddio wedi chi'n teimlo. Felly, byddai'n meddwl o'r mwybeithio yn llawer o'r tanfodol rydych yn olygu'r cerddel iawniool astudio. Mae'n defnyddio amnyddio'r ffordd iawn, gan ychydig bawb, ac y pethau amser yn y dyn charly. Mae'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod yng Nghar也可以ll ar gyfer cyfnod y Llywodraeth yn ymddangos pethau yn gorfod ar y rygwyr. Mae'r 18th sydd wedi bod yn rhan o'r gweithio gyda'r ffob o'r seil yn ysgrifffredig. Yn ym 18th, mae'r sgwr i'r ffordd ymlaen o'r seil wedi'u cyfnod yma yn ysgrifffredig, gyda'r sufyniaeth i'r cyhoedd i'r gwleidio i'r amlwg a'r amlwg yn ddod yn gyfnodol yn ymdweithio'r gyda'r cyhoedd Cymru. Mae cyhoedd y cyhoedd yn cyhoedd yn cyhoedd yma, fel ymdweithio'r cyhoedd ymdweithio'n cyhoedd ymdweithio'n cyhoedd i'r cyhoedd. Felly, mae'r cyhoedd yma yn cyhoedd yma yn cyhoedd, John Wesley yn cyhoedd yma, they were cut with the words believe, love and obey. Others use their initials as we'll see and images with a personal meaning. In such cases, the seal played the part of authenticating who the letter came from. You would recognise who the letter came from from the seal on the outside. So there's been a lot of message before you even opened the letter that it was from somebody you knew. Ieithiol yn ystod, ac mae'r ysgweithiau a'r hyn markets nad yw'r cydnod i'w gwaith yn cofnod ar gyfer ryw ffordd. Y rhywbeth ar gyfer rywbeth angen am y cydnod yn mae'r Rhys-Bwrdd, Rhyw ddweydy, Polwytoedd ac Triswn. O daliad i gyd ar rywbeth yw'r cydnod, rydyn ni'n bwysig i'w man. Dwi'n gweithio'r wenign maths o'r Rhys-Bwrdd roeddennig yn 1710, the best known man in London. Indeed, if you stood out on Piccadilly 310 years ago Henry Seshavrel's name would be on everybody's lips. He was a sensation, probably the first true celebrity of the modern age, and also one of the most hated men of his day. Seshavrel came from Puritan Stock. Indeed, one of his ancestors had signed and sealed the death warrant of Charles the first that we saw a minute ago. Another had been a Presbyterian who died in jail, though refusing to conform to the Church of England at the restoration. But Henry Seshavrel was made of very different stuff. He was a Tory high churchman with all the zeal of a convert. He had been at Oxford in the period where all tutors were required to denounce Republican doctrines to their students. Tutors were expected to tell students that people had no right of self-defense against tyrants and were required by God to obey their king. Having been ordained, Seshavrel became a fellow of boarding college Oxford. He gained the reputation of a fierce controversial preacher. When in 1702 he preached against religious toleration for dissenters, he advised his fellow clergy to quote, hang out the bloody flag and banner of defiance. Seshavrel was one of those Tory high churchmen who had serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Revolution of 1688. He didn't believe that people had the right to overthrow their monarch, even if he was a tyrant like James II. Seshavrel also thought that the Toleration Act, which allowed dissenters the freedom to worship as they wished, was harmful. He believed that church was in danger from the wits who supported religious toleration and in some cases would have extended it further. Seshavrel's doubts about the glorious revolution meant that he was close to the Jacobite treason that James II had remained king in 1689 and that his son James Edward was the rightful king too. Of course, Seshavrel couldn't say this. Indeed, he accurately proclaimed his loyalty to Queen Anne. But if he questioned the legitimacy of the revolution, surely people deduced he was at least a Jacobite fellow traveller, even if he wouldn't admit it. Now all of this went down very well in Tory Jacobite Oxford, where Seshavrel was a fellow of boarding college. But when he preached elsewhere, it was a different matter. In August 1709 he preached in Derby at the Asaises and was met with riots and public disturbances from opponents and supporters. In the same year he was appointed chaplain at the Salius suburb, which brought into prominence in London. Within a few weeks it was said of Seshavrel, quote, none so much talked about as he is all over town. One of the aspects of Seshavrel that unsettled people was his furious style. In the pulpit he was described as having inflamed cheeks, spittle and foam at his mouth and bulging eyes. He seemed to shout his sermons at his congregations. He was an angry man and a manic creature. He divided the country into those who admired and those who loathed him. On the 5th of November 1709, so 310 years in two days, if we ignore the camera shift in the middle of the 18th century, so on the 5th of November 1709 the double anniversary of course of the Dunpowder Pot and of the Landing of William of Orange in 1688, Henry Seshavrel preached an explosive sermon in support in front of the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Garrard and the Alderman of London. And here are two images, one on the left, a much later recreation I think of Seshavrel in full flood and on the right a ceramic representation of Seshavrel preaching. Before the sermon, during the prayers and hymns, a witness saw Seshavrel sitting with the clergy working himself up into an angry mood. It was said, quote, the firing red over spread his face. His gogling wildness came into his eyes. He came into the pulpit like a civil to the mouth of her cave. His sermon was a furious attack on the glorious revolution. Seshavrel accused low churchmen of being false brethren since they sympathised with dissenters and supported the toleration act that had been passed in the wake of the revolution. The sermon also suggested that the nation had violated the principle of passive obedience to a king in supporting William of Orange and implied that the glorious revolution was an error. For some, the sermon even seemed to question the right of Queen Anne to the throne. It certainly challenged the prospect of a Hanoverian succession. Sir Seshavrel also made fairly open attacks on the leading weak ministers. The printed version of the sermon was an instant bestseller. Within a few weeks, 100,000 copies of the sermon had been printed, and one estimate is that it was read by 250,000 people, approximately the entire electorate of the country. I can't emphasise to you enough how astonishing those figures are. 100,000 printed copies and 250,000 readers. Easily the most widely read item other than the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer of its day. When he preached elsewhere, the churches were full, and the congregations often spilled out into the graveyard. The weak government was appalled, not least because Seshavrel had referred in the sermon to Lord Gabolf in the Lord Treasurer as Bob Pony, the greedy and corrupt fox of Ben Johnson's play. At first, the government tried to ignore Seshavrel hoping that the unrest would go away, but every sermon he gave was an occasion for disturbance and huge crowds. In the end, the government decided that Seshavrel had to be impeached, which he was in February 1710. Here are the proceedings of the trial of Seshavrel. Impeachment, which is what Seshavrel was subject to, was a much easier route for prosecution than a trial, because, of course, impeachment simply relied on a political vote rather than a jury verdict. The trial was held in the House of Lords over three weeks and was a sensation. London was daily transfixed by the latest events in the House of Lords, and everyone seemed to either support or oppose Seshavrel. Among the most remarkable group of individuals who supported Seshavrel were the London prostitutes, who reportedly supported him en masse. It was said that London prostitutes, I guess in Wikipedia as elsewhere, importeum der clients with the words IU for the doctor, sir. Here's an image of Seshavrel as the modern idol attracting support of the London prostitutes. On three evenings after the verdict, there were riots in London. In the end, the army had to be called in to suppress them. Here are two representations of the Seshavrel riots. On the left in particular, the representation of the pulling down of a dissenting meeting house, the Seshavrel rioters seemed to have been pretty smart in spotting the places that they were going to go after, and among those they picked on were the Whig, Peers and Bishops in the House of Lords and dissenters' meeting houses. Although technically Seshavrel was found guilty of the charge of sedition, his sentence was so light that most people regarded it as an acquittal. His punishment was simply three-year suspension from preaching and the public burning of his sermon by the common hangman. In the wake of the trial, Seshavrel conducted a triumphal tour of the country which is thought to have swung the general election of 1710 to the Tories who won by a landslide. It must be the only occasion on which a sermon has determined the outcome of a general election. I make no cause for a contemporary moment. Seshavrel's sermon and trial represented the fault line that ran through the Tories in the three decades after the glorious revolution. Queen Anne, of course, was a steward and the daughter of James II and therefore could claim to be a hereditary succeeded to the throne. Her title to the throne was unchallenged by most, not least because she was a Tory. But the prospect of the succession of Sophia of Hanover when Anne died seemed to Tory of Jacobites as a perversion of the idea of hereditary. Moreover, the Hanoverians were Lutherans, exactly the sort of dissenters that Seshavrel resented. So Tories with a tinge of Jacobitism like Seshavrel were ambivalent, keen to question the legitimacy of 1688, keen to deter the Hanoverian succession, but unwilling to deny Queen Anne's right to the throne. This sort of equivocation is at the heart of what I want to talk about. Now, the trial of Seshavrel was too tempting an opportunity for the makers and sellers of souvenirs and mementos to ignore. Seshavrel was celebrated and remembered in a way that probably only monarchs had previously been. Seshavrel's portraits were plentiful, with dozens of different versions produced in 1710 and subsequent years. Here are three of them on the left-hand side, a popular image of the mob's idol, quite why Seshavrel has his tongue hanging out if I'm not quite sure. In the middle a ceramic portrait and on the right a rather more elaborate portrait of Seshavrel holding a picture of Charles I, representing this hereditary sense of monarchy. These are just three of the 80 or so images of Seshavrel that were produced in 1710. Moreover, the memory of Seshavrel among portraitists had a very long life. The last portrait of Seshavrel was produced in 1784. Most extraordinarily, the portraits found their way into Hogarth's harlot's progress. As I've mentioned, Seshavrel had a huge following among London prostitutes and here is Maul Hacabach in the third image of the sequence in her boudoir and on the left-hand side you can see two portraits hanging in her boudoir. On the right is Dr Seshavrel. So 20 years after the trial Hogarth still points out that Seshavrel was the prostitute's idol. Seshavrel was a common Christian name for children baptised between 1710 and 1720. There was also a huge outcoring of tracts and broadsides in his support and against him. There were, of course, these were largely popular items, there were, of course, elite items as well. Sorry, this is a Seshavrel fan, so images of Seshavrel were printed on fans, but these are two elite items on the left-hand side an ivory portrait of Seshavrel, only discovered in 2002. On the right, I'm sorry, it's such a poor image, a portrait of Seshavrel in silver on a wooden background. Rather like a portrait that was given silver on wood to Seshavrel's defence council, that is trial, Sir Simon Hartwood, these were clearly very expensive elite objects produced individually for particular supporters. Now among the entrepreneurs quick to capitalise on the main ear for Sir Seshavreliyana were medal makers. These were foremost in the souvenir market and also supplied emismatists with coins and medallions. Medal makers also saw that the market for such items was divided between Seshavrel's admirers and his opponents. The buyers of Seshavrel medals were able to express these two opinions. One of the medals struck in 1710 could be bought in two forms. This is the loyal medal. Seshavrel's portrait on the one side and on the other side a miter and the words is loyal is firm to thee. Clearly the meaning is that Seshavrel was a firm supporter of the Church of England. But Seshavrel's opponents could also buy a medal with the same head but with a difference inscription on the reverse is loyal to thee with a portrait of the pope. The implication being that Seshavrel's loyalties lay with the Catholic Church and the Jacobite Stuart succession. In fact if you notice the portrait of Seshavrel in both is identical so this is one medal maker who's producing medals for the different ends of the market. These products sum up the ambiguity of Seshavrel's own position as well as the divided nature of the market. They summed up how starkly society was divided towards Seshavrel and the issue of whether to commit itself to the Hanoverian succession or to the restoration of the house of Stuart. So tracts, prints, medals were all means for people to express support or opposition to Seshavrel. Now another object enabled divergent opinions to be expressed about in two, intaglio fob seals. And as I've mentioned these seals were sometimes made with three faces. These are two examples of three face seals. I hope you can see that the seals you can turn and a different face emerges. So you would have a seal with three faces that you could use for business or personal use or you could simply have three images on it which according to taste you used to seal your letters. Perhaps also these were objects that in a coffee house or a club you would show to your friends and colleagues and fellow travellers to impress them with your taste and political opinions. Now two such Seshavrel seals are known. The brackets on which they rest are similar, they're not identical, but the size of the seals is identical at 41 millimetres high. And the incised head of Seshavrel is identical although the form of lettering on it is different. Which suggests that like the medallions these Seshavrel seals were made by the same maker but were customised with different purchases or owners. In both cases the reference to Seshavrel that's holding a DD indicates that they were produced after he was awarded the Doctor of Divinity in 1708 and almost certainly they were both produced between 1710 and 1714 when Seshavrel mania was at its height. Now for the reasons which will become apparent I'm going to refer to the first seal as the loyal seal. This is a seal in the British Museum and I should refer to the second seal which will come to you as the disloyal seal. This is the first face on the loyal seal so it's a portrait of Seshavrel with the wording H Seshavrel DD and I think in a bit you'll see that it is pretty much identical to the image on the disloyal seal. The second image on the loyal seal is a profile portrait of Queen Anne inscribed Anna D.G. This was clearly intended to associate Seshavrel with Queen Anne to emphasise Seshavrel's claim that he didn't challenge or question the Queen's right to the throne. After all if you were in a coffee house or a club you would be showing this to friends who would turn the seal on its swivel and would be able to see Seshavrel and then Queen Anne. The third face on the seal is a monogram probably MCCN which has been interpreted by the British Museum catalogue as a reference to Magdalene College Oxford. Magdalene College, College Ym Magdalene, I think it would be. The British Museum catalogue suggests that this third face was intended for use by an official aboardling college Oxford. Now this clearly wasn't an official seal that wouldn't have been a portable item. I suppose it could have been a seal used by a college official while they were travelling away from the college or it could simply be that these are the initials of the owner which I think is an equally plausible explanation. But the third seal was clearly a personalisation of the seal to an institution or to an individual. Either way the loyal seal clearly associates Seshavrel with the legitimacy of Queen Anne and we couldn't possibly say that it had any width of Jacobite leanings. It's the sort of seal that a Tory fellow at Magdalene College might well own but that could be owned by anybody who was a supporter of both Seshavrel and Queen Anne. The second seal, the disloyal seal, is very different indeed and gives an alternative version of the purpose and principles behind such a seal. It also features Seshavrel's heading profile. The disloyal seal is one on the right hand side. I'm sorry that the images of these seals are difficult to capture with lighting but I hope we can see that the seal on the right hand side and the seal on the left hand side they are in fact despite the photography of identical signs are both comparable images of Henry Seshavrel. In this case the lettering is DD Seshavrel. Now the second face on the disloyal seal is very different and it depicts a cherub holding a crown over an altar on which there's a small flame burning. The inscription although it's damaged seems to be poor circumstances which doesn't translate readily from French it may be Norman French for for saying it. It doesn't appear to be a family motto, it doesn't appear to be a known phrase but if it is Norman French for the phrase for saying it it could be an exhortation to proclaim adherence to Seshavrel's ideals and therefore of the hereditary right of the stewards to the throne of Britain. The image of the cherub crown and altar on the second face it seems to me is difficult to interpret as anything other than a reference to the divinely sanctioned nature of monarchy and the hereditary nature of kingship. Perhaps the inscription is a reference to Seshavrel's willingness to speak of the nature of monarchy. Clearly this divine right nature of kingship was a Jacobine theme. It represented the base on which they sought to restore the stewards to the throne. So associating Seshavrel's portrait with this sort of image which could only be regarded as a Jacobite image was clearly politically dangerous. It's difficult to imagine the occasion on which you would be able to seal a document with this image without attracting some attention as it passed through the post office. The third face on the seal is something of a mystery. It's an armorial bearing. The arms show a shield on cross anchors which is characteristic of certain offices in the French Ocier regime. In France, two anchors in saltire behind the arms denotes a general of the gallus which is a high naval appointment. The eight-pointed star or yes, the eight-pointed star probably indicates that the order is a light of the order of St John of Malta or possibly of the order of Lazarus. The coronet is in French style and the cross is behind and below the shield but also unknown in the shiraldic use. So the armorial bearing is unknown and identified probably represents an exile at the Jacobite court in France in 1710 and perhaps a Catholic aristocrat. So there are two shiraldic seals, one loyal, the other disloyal, almost certainly made by the same seal maker, almost certainly as bespoke items for two people with diametrically opposed political principles. The loyal seal may well have been widely seen by friends of the owner. The disloyal seal probably by only a very few because of its width of treason. Now a question arises, were the shavarles seals ever used? Well, the British Museum catalogue shows two examples of the use of such seals featuring shavarles in British Library additional manuscripts in which the seals were used in the 1740s. Francis Falcon and Matten identified the use of such a seal on a document in the Summers Cox papers in the Surrey History Centre also dating from the 1740s. My own research has revealed other examples, a conveyance of land in Bedfordshire in April 1714 bears an image of the shavarles and a counterpart seal on a lease for land at Morling in Somerset in 1725 also bears the image of the shavarles. When this lecture was advertised, Dr Christopher Wright, I hope is in the audience, of the British Library very kindly drew my attention to a shavarles seal in press on a document which he owns, a document which dates from 1711, so it was sealed very soon after the height of the shavarles mania. That document was a financial bond signed by Archbus Kipax, the Archdeacon of the Isle of Man and Vicar of Hormskirk in Lancashire. This is the only surviving use of the seal by a clergyman which I think makes it quite significant. Further investigation of the seal in the Summers Cox papers at the Surrey History Centre reveals that two of the parties to the deed, William Golding and William Glassbrooke, were hot factors from the parish of Salius Southwch, the parish in which the shavarles was a chaplain from 1710. According to Geoffrey Holmes, the distinguished historian of the shavarles trial, rulers and other related tradesmen were particularly keen supporters of the shavarles in 1710. In all of the cases of the use of the shavarles seals, the purpose seems to be for legal authentication of a document rather than securing the privacy of a letter to go in the post. These impressions suggest that while the seals may have been bought in the period of or immediately after the trial, they remained in use, perhaps as family, personal or business seals long after the shavarles died in 1724. Like the portraits of the shavarles, the seals featuring his image lost their appeal and popularity only very slowly. Moreover, they were prized objects. They were made from iron with a very high carbon content. In fact, the rust on these iron seals is very, very slight, which suggests they're made with a very, very high carbon content, and therefore they were these expensive elite items quite difficult to reduce and would have been very costly. The disloyal seal hangs on a very fine chain in which there are dual blinks of crystal, and clearly as a fob seal they were designed for display, suggesting that the owner wore it personally on his body. The existence of two seals representing such different sets of political principles suggests that the market for high-end expenses for shavarles commemorative items, including seals and medals, was the most politically differentiated. The wealthy who wanted to show their support for shavarles behind churchmen could buy a loyalist seal and use it without impugning, indeed explicitly endorsing, Queen Anne's title to the throne. Those who wanted to allude to their own principles of the divine character of the monarchy and associated with the shavarles could do so in a seal which hinted broadly at treason. It's difficult, as I've said, to imagine the occasional on which a disloyal seal would be openly used. In France, perhaps among the exile court, it would have been more easily used than in England. These disloyal objects were part of a flourishing culture of Jacobitism that included jewellery, glassware, ceramics, books, and small personal items such as snuff boxes. They grew in popularity in the years after 1714. The fox seal could be easily placed in a pocket small enough to be hidden from the views of others. But what both of these seals suggest is that sigilographers have called time on the significance of seals far too early, that seals were still commissioned and used as personal and ideological objects into the 18th century suggest that we ought to pay more attention to them in this period. Thank you.