By Jack McArdle
When comparing the boar livery badge to modern examples of propaganda, it is obvious that parallels between the two can be drawn and that this is a piece of propaganda. Although the term “propaganda” was only first coined in 1622 and was little-used in English until World War One, when it gained the definition we would best associate with the word, public opinion has always been a force that needed to be managed.[1] This practice, albeit unnamed, had been employed by individuals and institutions for centuries.[2] Propaganda is the effort to create images and circumstances in the minds of as many people as possible, to convert, or confirm, their relationship with an idea, individual, or group.[3] British propaganda during the First World War, (with posters emblazoned with slogans such as ‘Your Country Needs You,’)
was intended to stir up patriotic fervour and mobilise the British population against Germany. Nazi propaganda tried to appeal to ‘national unity’ based upon the principle of the community before the individual; ‘the need for racial purity;’ ‘a hatred of enemies which increasingly centred on Jews and Bolsheviks’ and the leadership of Hitler.[4] In addition, the
practice of using badges as propaganda, emblazoned with political imagery or slogans, to
allow people to show loyalty to a political cause or an individual has been a practice employed in: Nazi Germany, Maoist China and North Korea, as well as in liberal democracies. Similarities can clearly be drawn between the boar livery badge and these modern examples, and doing so will demonstrate the badge’s propagandist intentions.
One central theme of political propaganda is its simplicity. Each piece is set around a single message; whether the intention is to mobilise or unify, the images and wordings conveying the intended message, are never complex. The design of the badges was deliberately simple, so they could be easily recognised and remembered.[5] Communication though symbols was especially important in an era of mass illiteracy and given how symbolic the institution of monarchy was. The livery badge was a simple way for the wearer to visibly affirm support to the monarch or to a noble family and allow the wearer to be identified as someone aligned or beholden to a particular person or family. Unlike coats of arms, badge devices were chosen by the individual and were less subject to any formal rules or official record. As such they were much more personal. It is thought that these badges first entered use during the thirteenth century, coming into fashion during the fourteenth century and remaining in general use until the end of Henry VIII’s reign.[6] The badges reached their peak in the second-half of the fifteenth century, although archaeological evidence suggests they persisted until the early seventeenth century.[7]
The informality of the livery badges adds to the difficultly of identification. However, the
image of the boar was a symbol of Richard III. Many badges such as these were produced for Richard’s coronation and again when his son was proclaimed Prince of Wales.[8]
Therefore, this badge was likely produced for Richard’s coronation in 1483. This badge possessed no official function, yet it served a great symbolic purpose – forming a link between the ruler and the ruled. The need to attract support was of paramount importance to Richard. Never had a king usurped the throne with so little committed support from the nobility or gentry, or popular backing.[9] Earlier usurpations had found some justification as protests against misgovernment, but Richard’s was ‘nakedly seen to be, an unashamed bid for personal power.’[10] Edward V succeeded his father Edward IV as King of England.[11] However, within four weeks of his father’s death, the young king was violently seized by his paternal uncle the Duke of Gloucester – the soon to be Richard III. People with connections to Edward V, as well as other opponents of Duke Richard, were executed or imprisoned.[12] Edward V himself had been lodged in the Tower of London and was soon joined there by his younger brother, Duke Richard of York, extricated under duress from the sanctuary at Westminster.[13] Neither would ever emerge from the Tower. Both were declared bastards and so unfit to inherit the throne.[14] Richard himself became king in Edward’s place on 26 June 1483.[15] Rumours claiming that the two young Princes had been murdered on Richard’s orders soon abounded. During his reign, one of the shortest in English history, there were two major uprisings. The first was in 1483. The second, and ultimately fatal rebellion, was made by Henry Tudor. It would culminate in Richard’s defeat and death at the battle of Bosworth field. It is therefore not surprising that Richard was preoccupied with ensuring loyalty, even from commoners, many of whom would have felt he was an illegitimate King. Symbols and imagery intended to boost and display support were needed more with Richard III than with most kings.
Richard began his reign during a thirty-year conflict – The War of the Roses. This was a conflict for the crown of England, fought between the House of York (which Richard III belonged too), and the House of Lancaster. The War would eventually end at the Battle of Bosworth field, in which Richard III would be killed by Henry Tudor – later to become King Henry VII of England. The role of symbols during, and after this conflict were of paramount importance. Most notably the Red Rose, representing the House of Lancaster and the White Rose, representing the House of York. After the defeat of Richard III, these two symbols would later be combined into what became known as the Tudor Rose, showing the newfound unity of England and an end to the conflict. During such a divisive struggle connecting with the people and gaining their support was essential. This is especially true for Richard III, whose claim to the throne was already shaky, without challenges from rival families. Richard III needed to assert his claim as King and propagate his image and symbols to convert or confirm public opinion into accepting him as the rightful King, instead of his Lancastrian rival. A propaganda effort was further needed to improve his personal standing with the country after the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, who were arguably the rightful heirs. Richard was only supposed to act of Lord Protector until the young Edward V was old enough govern alone.
The badge is made of an inexpensive composite material, known as pewter, comprised of tin and lead. The material of the badge, and the status of the person receiving it, were likely connected – the upper levels of society would warrant gold, while those in more middling positions would be gifted silver-gilt. Pewter badges were likely regarded as too valueless, even insulting, to gift to the nobility.
Therefore, these humblest of badges were likely given to well-wishers among the general public. Pewter is not only a cheap metal, but it also has a low melting point, allowing it to be easily smelted and cast in a mould. The metal would then solidify in seconds. This allowed badges to be mass-manufactured and made them an inexpensive way to mass-produce an image. Therefore, the livery badge made an excellent visual marker and to all intents and purposes, a propaganda piece.
Badges have continued to be used for political purposes throughout history. The party badge of the Nazis always present on Hitler’s uniform was not only to show party affiliation, but was also a reward. The basic badge is a simple design, consisting of the swastika and the red and white colours of the Nazi flag and the fuller name of the Nazi Party, ‘National Socialist’
and the letters ‘DAP.’ However, the Golden Party badge, authorised by Hitler in 1933, was the basic Nazi Party Badge with the addition of a gold wrath completely encircling it. It was intended as a special award to be given to all members of the Nazi party who had, as of 9 November 1933, registered numbers from one to 100,000 and unbroken party membership.[16] Other Golden Party Badges, with the initials ‘A.H.’ stamped on the reverse, were awarded at the discretion of Hitler to certain members of the Nazi Party who merited special treatment.[17] An identical badge was awarded each year on 30th January to persons who had shown outstanding service to the Nazi Party or State.[18] Though this specific boar badge was made of low-grade pewter, other badges of a similar design, made of gold, could have been given to the upper ranks of society.[19] These more expensive badges would be a way for the King to give favour and gain support among the aristocracy; for the aristocracy to show support and friendship for the King and to highlight political factions. They were similar in some ways to royal seals that would have been used to give powers and display trust.
Political badges were also heavily utilised in Maoist China. During the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (1966-1976) huge numbers of badges, with tens of thousands of different designs, were produced. Following the disastrous ‘Great Lead Forward’ (1958-1961,) which attempted to industrialise China, but instead resulted in the death of between 20-30 million people, Mao found his position within the Communist Party weakened.
The Cultural Revolution was intended to re-establish Mao’s control and expel his opponents.[20] Mao further saw his latest political campaign as a way of reinvigorating the communist revolution by strengthening ideology. As there were no centralised designs or production, the political design of the Mao badges and the artistic features differed from button-to-button, ranging from a simple depiction of Mao’s image on a red background to more complex symbolic combinations of imagery. However, each badge was intended as a way to spread Mao’s image, as well as his ideological themes across China. The badges were an expression of loyalty, but also of Mao worship. All the images and inscriptions found on the badges were to convey a political message, always positive, in which there was little room for any doubt.[21] Images on the Mao badges were drawn from a limited range of appropriate ‘revolutionary images,’ and any creativity on the part of the designer was focused on the presentation of particular images and inscriptions, despite the lack of centralised production.[22] This makes them similar in many respects to Richard’s III boar livery badge. They were both produced de-centrally and were both intended to spread an image for someone, Mao or Richard, to assert control over the country.
These Mao badges went on to instigate similar insignias in China’s neighbour, North Korea. Today, and for more of North Korea’s history, badges are worn depicting the image of the country’s former leader, Kim Il-Sung, and in some cases his son and successor, Kim Jong-Il.[23] The design of the badges is linked to social status and must be worn on the left side of a garment, over the heart.[24] As such, they are culturally more important than Mao badges and are a part of the cult of personality surrounding the ruling Kim family. This tied into the wider state-sponsored imagery of North Korea. The images of the country’s former dictators are not only present on the badges worn by every citizen, but on thousands of propaganda posters and statues throughout the country. The Kims have, quite literally, stamped their image onto an entire nation.
The boar design is deliberately simple, just like the badges of Nazi Germany, Maoist China or North Korea. The boar is a large, territorial and powerful animal, with its large tusks clearly visible on the livery badge.[25] The boar was frequently associated with courage and ferocity, qualities a new king would want to portray.[26] The boar is a symbol present throughout the Indo-European world and was also associated with wealth in the fourteenth century as hunting, and the hunting of wild boars, was seen as a pastime of the upper classes.[27] Boar hunting was often seen as a test of bravery and killing a wild boar was considered an achievement.[28] Although hunting was a favourite sport of royal princes, the “lust for hunting” in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was present throughout the aristocracy, right down to children of the gentry. The choosing of the boar as an emblem could have been to associate Richard with a popular aristocratic activity, as well as with the animal itself. Although the badge is a darkened colour, originally it would have been made shiny by the presence of lead. The boar symbol itself, however, is white. The colour is of significance as the white boar is likely intended to be linked to Richard’s Yorkist loyalties. The symbol of York was, and still is, a white rose.
Using symbols to reflect a person’s personality and portray their qualities in a flattering light is a tradition that has continued. Similarities between the symbolism of the boar livery badge and modern political iconography can be found. Political parties have frequently changed their symbols in an effort to “rebrand” themselves and appear more salient and modern to win electoral support. In the UK, the Labour party, in an attempt to show it’s shift away from the “leftist” reputation that had defined it in the 1980s to the political centre, changed its logo to a red rose.
The Conservative Party changed their logo from a torch to a tree design. Again, they were
trying to persuade people that they had made progressive shifts and that this was a different political party to the one lead by Margaret Thatcher. The new logo also tried to highlight different policy focuses such as the environment, and shift people’s perception of the Conservatives as a party obsessed with Europe, immigration and lower taxes.
During the 2016 US Presidential Election, the candidate logos were all attempting to reflect the values and personality of the candidate and further their campaigns. The Hillary Clinton Campaign logo did not feature the candidate’s name, only an ‘H,’ unlike Clinton’s 2007 Presidential campaign which did feature her name.
This was intended to move focus away from the candidate specifically and onto the idea of a movement. Clinton’s badge is also reminiscent of the campaign logo that propelled Barrack Obama to presidency in 2008. His logo featured the ‘O’ of his surname as a sun rising, over the stripes of the American flag. It symbolised hope for the future that a new day was about to arrive. It linked perfectly to Obama’s message. Contrastingly, Donald Trump’s campaign did feature his name in bold letters in the centre of the logo. This was designed to reflect Trump’s properties and business activities and highlight his supposed qualifications as a businessman.
In an age before mass literacy, and with printing in its infancy, images and symbolism were even more essential for communication. Small symbols baring objects such as the royal seals were a way to delegate authority, enabling the monarch to be in multiple locations, as well as giving documents an official standing. Coins are another prime example. They too are impressed with the image and symbols of the monarch. Charlemagne’s coinage ‘sent an impressive and influential message’ of imperial status throughout the Frankish World, in particular his Portrait coinage in the 810s.[29] It featured a right-facing bust of Charlemagne wearing a Roman military cloak and laurel wreath.[30] This coin was modelled to echo Roman coinage and display Charlemagne as a successor to the emperors of Rome.[31]
An example of coinage minted during Richard III’s reign is a silver groat.
This coin features an image of Richard III himself. It is an image of Richard III wearing the crown on his head, sending a very clear message – Richard is King. However, comparing the design of the coin to the coinage minted during the reign of his brother, Edward IV, the similarities are hard to deny. Richard is shown in the same pose and with the same hairstyle as his brother. Richard III is trying to link himself with his brother to depict himself as his brother’s rightful successor and establish legitimacy for his reign. The similarities between the portrayals of these two brothers even continued after their deaths. Two portraits painted somewhere between 1597-1618, after their respective reigns, but likely based on earlier likenesses, depict the brothers in similar poses, looking in the same direction, with a clear resemblance between their faces. However, although livery badges bore no official function, they did possess a useful informality. Richard III choose the boar as his symbol. As a result, the livery badges are more personalised objects than coins.
To turn to seals, a term usually applied to the impression left by the stamping of an engraved metal die or “matrix” which has been pressed into a material such as wax, the seal often bears the owner’s portrait or coat of arms. They were used to authenticate documents (such as letters) in much the same way as we use signatures today. Seals speak to authority and legitimacy. The seal Richard used when he was Duke of Gloucester features a single masted ship, the mainsail of which is charged with the arms of the Duke of Gloucester (quarterly France and England.) This is the same design as the Royal coat of arms used by his brother, and the same heraldry that Richard would adopt when he became King.
A legend is within the outer border and reads: [s’: rich . duc . glouc . admiralli: angl’: i . com: dors . t soms,] announcing the owner, Richard – later King Richard III – as Duke of Gloucester, Admiral of Dorset and Somerset.
This ship design is similar to a gold angel coin that was minted when Richard became King. Turning to heraldry designs, this creation of the mid-twelfth century appeared by the middle of the thirteenth century in all media of medieval art and architecture.[32] The aim of heraldry was personal identification, to carry a code of important messages about ownership, patronage, or, at least general political or social affiliation.[33] The white boar also appears as part of a coat of arms. Likely in an attempt to assert himself as King, Richard incorporated his personal imagery into a traditional coat of arms, once again showing himself as King.
Political leaders have long been obsessed with their image. John F. Kennedy’s image especially helped propel him to the White House. Most important was the televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon during the 1960 US Presidential election.
Kennedy appeared youthful, handsome, relaxed and in control. In contrast to Nixon, who failed to wear adequate makeup, he appeared sallow, sweaty, and shifty. The importance of image during that debate was made obvious when it was revealed that people watching the debate believed Kennedy had won, however, people listening via radio, thought Nixon had won.
In the UK, the political leader Michael Foot was vilified for the wearing of a “donkey jacket” at the Cenotaph, in contrast to his eventual successor as leader of the Labour Party, Tony Blair. For Richard III, in the absence of photography, one of the few ways he could possibly project an image of himself, was portraiture. However, a painting required time and skill to complete. It could also not be mass-produced to the same extent, or with the same ease as a livery badge, whereas a simple pewter badge could be finished in minutes, by an unskilled person using a pre-made mould. The symbolism of the badge, similar, but more important to modern campaign logos, was Richard’s public image to many people. A painting also lacks the same degree of portability of the small and lightweight livery badge, making it a vital political tool.
This livery badge, similar to pilgrim badges, could also serve as a touch stone to the King himself. Pilgrims would journey to a site of religious significance, for example to the location of a relic, and buy small, inexpensive souvenirs – pilgrim badges. These would serve not only as evidence of their pilgrimage, but, and perhaps more importantly, as a touch stone: an object that absorbed the virtue of the original relic, image or shrine. These pilgrim souvenirs therefore had similar properties to the much sought-after relics sought in the medieval period. They were believed to cure illness and disease and also served as a focus for individual prayer and personal devotion.[34] Therefore, the material and design of this badge is not the only consideration. In this period, there was a belief in the spiritual power of the monarch and their unique, personal connection to God. It was believed that the touch of the monarch could heal the afflicted. Thousands of people made the long journeys to be healed by the royal hands.[35] It was further believed that the royal touch could also be conveyed through objects such as Angel coins.[36] The livery badge was a gift from the king of England and bares his emblem.
In conclusion, the boar badge is most definitely a piece of propaganda, despite the term not being used with the modern connotation for hundreds of years after the death of Richard III. The intended effect of the boar badge was the same that we would ascribe to modern propaganda and political imagery. The management of public opinion and the need for a political figure to project a favourable image were, and still are, necessities. In the absence of many modern tools for propagating an image, an inexpensive and easily manufactured badge, emblazoned with iconography, was a logical, medieval alternative for Richard III. He could, and did, use the pewter badge in similar ways to modern equivalents, as previously described. Furthermore, like modern political symbols and propaganda, this boar badge was not produced in a vacuum, but as part of a wider campaign to present Richard as the rightful King and ensure he was accepted as such, including his use of coins, heraldry and seals. Just like today, a candidate for political office would use multiple methods to get their message across.
Bibliography
Bernays, Edward L., Propaganda (New York: Liveright, 1928)
Brogan, Stephen, The Royal Touch in Early Modern England: Politics, Medicine, and Sin (Suffolk: Royal Historical Society, 2015)
Coupland, Simon, ‘Charlemagne’s Coinage: Ideology and Economy,’ in Joanna Story, Charlemagne: Empire and Society (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005)
Davis, Jennifer R., ‘Charlemagne's Portrait Coinage and Ideas of Rulership at the Carolingian Court,’ Notes in the History or Art, 33 (2014)
Gheerbrant, Alain; Chevalier, Jean, The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols (London: Penguin Group, 1996)
Helen Wang, ‘Chairman Mao Badges: Symbols and Slogans of the Cultural Revolution,’ The Research Publications, 169 (2008)
Lillich, Meredith Parsons, ‘Early Heraldry: How to Crack the Code,’ Gesta, 30 (1991)
Lim, Jae-Cheon, Leader Symbols and Personality Cult in North Korea: The Leader State (Oxon: Routledge, 2015)
Lumsden, Robin, Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Germany (Osceola, Wisconsin: MBI Publishing Company, 2001)
Rhodes, Rosamond; Battin, Margaret P.; Silvers, Anita, Social History of Medicine, 31 (2018)
Ross, Charles, Richard III (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981)
Spencer, Brian, Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular Badges (London: Boydell Press, 2010)
Welch, David. ‘Nazi Propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a People’s Community,’ Journal Contemporary History, 39 (2004)
Frank Dikötter, Frank, ‘Mao’s Great Leap to Famine,’ The New York Times (2010) <https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html> [accessed 3 March 2019]
[1] Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (New York: Liveright, 1928), pp. 9-11.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] David Welch, ‘Nazi Propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a People’s Community,’ Journal Contemporary History, 39, (2004), pp. 213-238.
[5] Brian Spencer, Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular Badges (London: Boydell Press, 2010), n.p.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Charles Ross, Richard III (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981), n.p.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Robin Lumsden, Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Germany (Osceola, Wisconsin: MBI Publishing Company, 2001,) n.p.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Spencer, Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular Badges, n.p.
[20] Frank Dikötter, ‘Mao’s Great Leap to Famine,’ The New York Times (2010) <https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html> [accessed 3 March 2019.]
[21] Helen Wang, ‘Chairman Mao Badges: Symbols and Slogans of the Cultural Revolution,’ The Research Publications, 169 (2008), n.p.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jae-Cheon Lim, Leader Symbols and Personality Cult in North Korea: The Leader State (Oxon: Routledge, 2015), n.p.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Alain Gheerbrant; Jean Chevalier, The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols (London: Penguin Group, 1996), n.p.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Simon Coupland, ‘Charlemagne’s Coinage: Ideology and Economy,’ in Joanna Story, Charlemagne: Empire and Society (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), n.p.
[30] Jennifer R. Davis, ‘Charlemagne's Portrait Coinage and Ideas of Rulership at the Carolingian Court,’ Notes in the History or Art, 33, (2014), pp. 19-27.
[31] Ibid, pp. 19-27.
[32] Meredith Parsons Lillich, ‘Early Heraldry: How to Crack the Code,’ Gesta, 30 (1991), pp. 41-47.
[33] Ibid, pp. 41-47.
[34] Rosamond Rhodes; Margaret P. Battin; Anita Silvers, Social History of Medicine, 31 (2018), pp. 178-179.
[35] Stephen Brogan, The Royal Touch in Early Modern England: Politics, Medicine, and Sin (Suffolk: Royal Historical Society, 2015.)
[36] Ibid, p.265.
Comments