There were also other Kings of Arms, denominated from the dukedoms or earldoms which our princes enjoyed before they came to the throne, as _Lancaster_, _Gloucester_, _Richmond_, and _Leicester_, the three first {30} having marches, or provinces, and the latter a similar jurisdiction. Windsor, likewise, was a local title, but it is doubtful whether that officer was ever a King of Arms. _Marche_ also assumed that appellation, from his provincial jurisdiction over a territory so called. But although anciently there were at different periods several Kings of Arms in England, only two provincial Kings of Arms have, for some ages, been continued in office, viz. Clarenceux and Norroy, whose provinces or marches are, as before observed, separated by the river Trent, the ancient limits of the escheaters, when there are only two in the kingdom, and the jurisdiction of the wardens of the forests. _Norroy_ is considered the most ancient title, being the only one in England taken from the local situation of his province, unless _Marche_ should be derived from the same cause. The title of _Norroy_ was anciently written _Norreys_ and _Norreis_, King of Arms of the people residing in the north; _Garter_ being styled _Roy des Anglois_, of the people, and not _d'Angleterre_, of the kingdom, the inhabitants of the north being called _Norreys_,[1] as we are informed by ancient historians. It appears that there was a King of Arms for the parts or people on the north of Trent as early as the reign of Edward I., from which, as Sir Henry Spelman observes, it may be inferred that the southern, eastern, and western parts had principal heralds, or Kings of Arms, although their titles at that early age cannot now be ascertained. _Norroy_ had not the title of King till after the reign of Edward II. It was appropriated to a King of Heralds, expressly called _Rex Norroy_, _Roy d'Armes del North_, _Rex Armorum del North_, _Rex de North_, and _Rex Norroy du North_; and the term _Roy Norreys_ likewise occurs in the Pell Rolls of the 22nd Edward III.; but from that time till the 9th of Richard II. no farther mention is made of any such officer, from which it is probable a different person enjoyed the office by some other title during that interval, particularly as the office was actually executed by other Kings of Arms, immediately after that period. _John Otharlake, Marche King of Arms_, executed it in the 9th of Richard II., Richard del Brugg, Lancaster King of Arms, 1st Henry IV., and _Ashwell_, _Boys_, and _Tindal_, successively _Lancaster Kings of Arms_, until the end of that monarch's reign.