• 1 De Smedt 1992, p. 3.

1Saint Rumbold’s Cathedral in Mechelen houses a series of armorial panels commemorating the fifteenth chapter of one of the most prestigious chivalric orders, the Order of the Golden Fleece, which took place there in 1491. This chapter was supposed to be the third under the leadership of Maximilian I of Austria (1459-1519), its knight and sovereign since 1478. These meetings were seminal ceremonies of the Order and served as a proof of the power and magnificence of both the sovereign and the Order. Normally, they were organized every three years in various Burgundian cities,1 however, this time, there had been a ten-year gap after the previous meeting in ‘s-Hertogenbosch (1481). There were several circumstances that had presumably contributed to this long interval.

• 2 See for instance Terjanian 2019, p. 17-37.
• 3 See for instance Spijkers 2014.
• 4 Wellens 1965; Dumolyn and Haemers 2011.

2On 27 March 1482, Mary of Burgundy, Duchess of Burgundy (1457-1482), tragically died, leaving behind her husband, Maximilian I of Austria (1459-1519), and two children, Margaret of Austria (1480-1530) and Philip the Handsome (1478-1506). Although Philip was the ‘natural’ prince and Burgundian heir, he was not old enough to rule and the task fell to Maximilian. But Maximilian was perceived as a foreigner who only gained power over the Low Countries thanks to his marriage and many rejected his authority.2 Flemish cities, Ghent and Bruges in particular, constantly rebelled against him.3 In 1488, he was even captured in Bruges, his followers executed, and Maximilian himself threatened with death.4 Although he was eventually freed, Maximilian departed from the Low Countries soon after this humiliating experience. However, the military revolt against him continued until 1492.

• 5 Dünnebeil 2012.
• 6 Haemers 2014, p. 100.
• 7 De Reiffenberg 1830, p. 130.

3Maximilian’s struggle for authority occurred in the ranks of the Order too.5 Several knights refused to accept Maximilian’s authority, and various members previously loyal to the deceased Burgundian duke Charles the Bold deserted to France. A promise of reconciliation was brought during a gathering in Dendermonde in summer 1484, where the knights allowed Maximilian to preside over meetings until his son reached the age of majority.6 This arrangement was far from a unanimous decision, for several knights proposed to postpone the meeting until the moment of Philip’s age of majority, or even until his marriage.7 The conflicts within the ranks of the Order likely contributed to the fact that no meeting took place in 1484 or in the subsequent years.

• 8 Ibidem, p. 177.
• 9 De Smedt 1992, p. 9.
• 10 Laenen 1934, p. 65.
• 11 For Philip’s appointment to the Order, see Dünnebeil 2014.
• 12 De Smedt 2000, p. 204-206.

4Having more or less regained control of the political situation, Maximilian wrote to his son in July 1490, expressing his wish to organize another chapter, but informing him that he was unable to get to the Low Countries.8 He asked Philip to propose the location and send him a list of eligible knights.9 The first choice was Namur, but since the city was occupied by war troops, it was decided to organize the chapter in Mechelen, a well-fortified city with 7 great and 5 smaller gates and the place where Philip had grown up.10 The young prince had been named a knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece during the previous chapter in ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1481, when he was only 3 years old. The age of majority, which was 16 years, was a prerequisite for becoming a member of the Order. However, since Philip was an heir to the throne, the knights decided to make an exception.11 Moreover, as his father Maximilian could not attend the Mechelen chapter, it was decided that this 13-year-old boy would preside over the meeting.12

• 13 De Smedt 1992, p. 17.

5As was customary, the principal meeting was organized in the parochial church of the city, the church (later cathedral) of Saint Rumbold. Works of art made specifically for the chapters of the Order of the Golden Fleece mirrored the importance of this event, and the festivity in Mechelen was no exception. The church was magnificently decorated. Luxurious tapestries were hung and altars were embellished with lavishly embroidered antependia. The oath cross of the Order, inlaid with precious stones and gems, was also on view.13 Among the most important artworks made specifically for the chapter was a series of armorial panels, originally displayed in the choir of the church above the seat of each knight.

• 14 See Van den Bergen-Pantens 1980; Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981; Van den Bergen-Pantens 1987; Van den (...)
• 15 Exhibition curated by Samuel Mareel, from 26 March to 4 July 2021, see Mareel 2021.
• 16 See Coudray ‘laboratory report’ and Toussat ‘technical and art historical study’ in KIK-IRPA files: (...)

6The armorial panels in Mechelen are one of the most complete series still preserved in situ. However, since the current condition of these paintings is rather poor, it is difficult to appreciate their former glory. Moreover, as heraldic paintings are traditionally considered as solely decorative and of little value from an art historical point of view, the armorial panels in Mechelen have not attracted much attention from recent scholars, with the notable exception of Christiane van den BergenPantens.14 The organisation of the exhibition Kinderen van de Renaissance at the Museum Hof van Busleyden in Mechelen in 202015 and the patronage of the Périer-D’Ieteren Foundation offered an opportunity to study two works from this series at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA): the armorial panels of Philip the Handsome and that of Philip of Burgundy, Lord of Beveren, henceforth referred to as Philip of Burgundy-Beveren (before 1464-1498).16 The present paper first discusses how this peculiar type of painting was made before focusing on their authorship and reflecting on how the panels with the coats of arms were perceived and used at the chapters of the Order of the Golden Fleece.

• 17 Thiry 2014, p. 143-144.
• 18 Ibidem, p. 143.
• 19 Laurent 1997, p. 9-10.
• 20 Thiry 2014, p. 144.
• 21 For a detailed biography of Philip the Handsome see Cauchies 2003.

8The escutcheons depict coats of arms constructed according to the strict heraldic system. Following the death of Mary of Burgundy, discussions started about the appearance and composition of Philip’s coat of arms during his age of minority.17 Allegedly, until 1482, young Philip bore a silver label of three points on his paternal arms, referring to the title of count of Charolais.18 In 1483, the rebelling Flemish regency council designed a seal with the arms of his Valois predecessors quartered with Austria.19 Maximilian fashioned for himself and his son a seal showing a complex relationship and union of Austria and the Low Countries, used during Mary’s lifetime.20 It is exactly this coat of arms in the seal that is depicted in the panel with Philip’s coat of arms made for the chapter in Mechelen. We can also find it in a portrait of Philip from 1493-1495 attributed to Pieter van Conincxloo [fig. 3]. The helmet above the escutcheon is surmounted by an archducal crown to indicate Philip’s status as heir to the Archduke of Austria.21

• 22 De Smedt 2000, p. 198-199.

9The escutcheon of Philip of Burgundy-Beveren combines the coat of arms of his father Antoine of Burgundy and that of his mother Marie de la Viefville (or Vieuville).22 Surrounded by a blue and golden mantling, the helmet above the escutcheon is surmounted by a red and white torse with an owl on the top, symbol of wisdom, which can also be found on the miniature depicting Philip of Burgundy-Beveren dating from 1478 [fig. 4]. In 1485 he married Anna van Borselen and became Lord of Veere, Vlissingen and other seigniories in Zeeland. His act of bravery and resistance against the troops of King Louis XI during the siege of Saint-Omer in 1477 earned him his membership of the Order of the Golden Fleece in the chapter held one year later in Bruges. As Conseiller-chambellan of Maximilian and Philip the Handsome, he was involved in the political conflicts in the Low Countries. Having joined forces with the rebel party in Ghent (1488), for a while he supported the party of Philip of Cleves, leader of the opposition to Maximilian, for which he was reprimanded at the chapter of the Golden Fleece in Mechelen in 1491. He became Admiral of the Low Countries from 1491 to 1498.

• 23 Layer applied in 1990. See report in KIK-IRPA file 1990.04546.

11On the back of the paintings the four edges are slightly bevelled. This was usually done to facilitate framing. A layer of bees- and paraffin wax hinders the examination of the reverse of the panel with the coat of arms of Philip the Handsome.23 The panel with the coat of arms of Philip of Burgundy has no such coating and reveals tool marks from the manufacturing of the planks [fig. 8]. The presence of these marks, including cleavage marks in the lower part of the left plank, indicates that the panel retains its original thickness [fig. 5].

• 24 Billinge et al. 1997, p. 21.

12It is most likely that the panels were glue-sized before applying the ground layer, as often recommended in technical treatises, although this layer was not visible on the cross-sections.24 The ground layer is white and made of chalk, probably mixed with animal glue, which was the traditional material for panels from the Low Countries from the late fourteenth to early seventeenth centuries [fig. 21-23].

• 25 Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981, p. 95-96.

14The high degree of correspondence between certain elements of the composition present in both paintings such as the chain of the collar and the mantling suggests that a cartoon or stencil could have been used for establishing the composition on the panels. Slight differences could be explained by adjustments during the painting stage or by the presence of overpaint. The use of a cartoon in the making of armorial panels would not be unusual. Christiane van den BergenPantens has already suggested their use for the Coat of arms of Anthony, bastard of Burgundy, and the Coat of arms of Pedro de Cardona, both painted in 1460, and for the paintings of coats of arms in the church of Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk in Bruges dating from 1468.25 It is also possible that the calligraphy of the Mechelen series was based on a repertoire of models as some letters are very similar in both paintings. This is the case of the ‘B’ of Philip of Burgundy and Anthony Bastard of Burgundy [fig. 10].

• 26 Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981, p. 97.

18The text is painted using gold leaf, which has been applied on a light yellow lead-containing mordant on the black background. The letters were then further defined with black outlines, whose composition is richer in copper than the black background. Crosssections of samples reveal that the mordant is preceded by four organic layers. Their exact composition has not been established but they are most likely varnishes applied on top of the black background [fig. 21]. Only the two first layers are visible in the cross-sections taken from the escutcheon and the mantling [fig. 22-23]. This difference in build-up seems to indicate that the works were done in two steps: first the central part with the coat of arms and then the inscriptions, separated by two varnish layers, one of which has a thin deposit on the surface. This could reflect a division of labour during the execution of the panels. It is known, for instance, that both Jean Hennecart and Pierre Coustain were paid for the series of armorial panels for the Bruges chapter of 1468. Christiane van den Bergen-Pantens has suggested that Jean Hennecart was in charge of the calligraphy while Pierre Coustain would have designed and painted the heraldic part.26

• 27 Neeffs 1878, p. 175.
• 28 Coninckx 1907, p. 63-74.
• 29 Châtelet 1962; Bücken and Steyaert 2013, p. 120-121.
• 30 Coninckx 1907. Archival documents published p. 67-70.
• 31 Bruges, Stadsarchief, Memorielijst van de Brugse Schilders, Reeksnummer 314: Beeldenmakers. Availab (...)

19Unfortunately, no information about the commission of the Mechelen series has been discovered yet, but the authorship has been discussed in the literature. According to Emmanuel Neeffs (1875), the series could have been painted by Baudouin van Battel, alias vander Wyck. He was an artist from a family of painters working in Mechelen in the fifteenth century and is best known for painting the coats of arms for the Joyous Entry of Mary of Burgundy in that city.27 In 1907, Hyacinthe Coninckx refuted this hypothesis and suggested that the panels could have been executed by Pierre Coustain, a Franco-Flemish painter and designer28 who often worked for the Dukes of Burgundy.29 According to the archival documents published by Coninckx, it is the painter Pierre Coustain (documented 1450-1487) who was often asked to paint the coats of arms for chapters preceding the 1491 meeting in Mechelen, namely for the chapters in Saint-Omer in 1461, Bruges in 1468, Valenciennes in 1473 and ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1481.30 Therefore, it is tempting to attribute the Mechelen panels to the same artist. However, it is not known whether Pierre Coustain was still alive in 1491. The latest mention of the artist is found in the 1487 memorial list of the Bruges painters’ guild,31 the date that art historians have therefore considered as the presumed year of his death. Pierre Coustain is known to have collaborated with Jean Hennecart (active 1454-1475) on the armorial panels of the 1468 chapter, but the latter certainly did not take part in the making of the Mechelen panels since he died in 1475.

• 32 This panel is wrongly dated to 1461 on the Joconde database. Christiane van den Bergen-Pantens date (...)

21The earliest preserved example of a heraldic panel painted for a knight of the Golden Fleece is the Coat of arms of Jean de Villiers, Lord of L’Isle-Adam (13841437), made for the chapter of 1440 in Saint-Omer, now in the Musée Sandelin [fig. 24].32 As with the Mechelen panels, the central coat of arms, surrounded by the collar of the Golden Fleece, is surmounted by a helmet and a crest. On either side the mantling is unfurled and at the top and bottom an inscription in gold letters identifies the owner of the coat of arms. But the shapes are simpler than those in the Mechelen panels, the calligraphy is less richly ornamented, the mantling is less abundant, and the rendering of the helmet and the chain is less detailed.

• 33 Van den Bergen-Pantens 1980, p. 224 and Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981 p. 95.
• 34 Kruip 2015.
• 35 The dating of the panels is debated in the literature. According to the exhibitions catalogue ‘La T (...)
• 36 Archival documents indicate that Pierre Coustain was paid for the ‘patrons des armes de tous les ch (...)
• 37 Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981, p. 95.

22As noted by Christiane van den Bergen-Pantens, the style of armorial panels changes from 1456 onwards, which would testify to the arrival of two new painters: Jean Hennecart, specialised in calligraphy, and Pierre Coustain, who painted coats of arms.33 There are examples of 35 paintings made for the chapter in the Grote Kerk of The Hague in 1456; however, these are sixteenth-century copies commissioned by Charles V to replace the 1456 originals, which had been destroyed in a fire in 1539.34 It is possible that in style, these later panels are faithful to their original precedents. The remakes are indeed close to the Mechelen panels from 1491, but the comparison cannot be used as an argument for attributing the Mechelen paintings to Coustain and Hennecart. It is more pertinent to compare them with panels most likely made for the chapter which took place in Saint-Omer in 1461,35 which are attributed to Pierre Coustain.36 There are two examples of these in the Musée Sandelin [fig. 25]. As already noted by Christiane Van den Bergen-Pantens, this series stands out from the previous ones (if we exclude the The Hague series) by the sophistication of the calligraphy, the care taken to describe the ornaments of the collars and helmets, and the mantling that elegantly unfolds in volutes.37 They are stylistically very similar to the Mechelen series. The same holds true for the armorial panels painted by Jean Hennecart and Pierre Coustain for the chapter of 1468 held in the Bruges church of Our Lady. Although the calligraphy is simpler in the Bruges paintings, the collar, helmet and crest are comparable [fig. 26 and 27].

• 38 We are grateful to Petria Noble and Gwen Tauber for sending us the Rijksmuseum’s technical document (...)
• 39 Coninckx 1907, p. 69. The website of the Rijksmuseum indicates ‘attributed to’.

23These similarities could lead to the conclusion that it was indeed Pierre Coustain who made the Mechelen panels. However, two paintings also attributed to Pierre Coustain in the Rijksmuseum are somewhat different in style and quality [fig. 28]. Indeed, these armorial paintings, made for the chapter of the Golden Fleece of 1481 in ‘s -Hertogenbosch, are in the same spirit and appear to be carried out using the same techniques, but their style is heavier. The emblems are modelled with thicker and less subtle hatching lines, giving a stiffer and more stylised appearance than that seen in the Mechelen and Bruges panels.38 As a matter of fact, there is no compelling documentary evidence that Pierre Coustain painted the coats of arms for this chapter, since the records transcribed by Coninckx only indicate that he did ‘works’ (ouvrages) for the chapter, without specifying which ones.39 Assuming that these works were nevertheless produced by Coustain, it cannot be ruled out that he modified his style slightly for this chapter, that he collaborated with another artist or that he ran a workshop with assistants, which would explain some of the variations in quality and style within his production.

• 40 Conninckx 1907, p. 70-71.

24From 1494 onwards, archival documents reveal that it was the painter Jacob van Lathem (ca. 1470-after 1528) and later Jan van Battel (1477-1557) who were in charge of painting the armorial panels for the chapters of the Order of the Golden Fleece.40 While Jan van Battel was too young to be responsible for the creation of the Mechelen series, Jacob van Lathem, then aged around 21, seems to be another plausible candidate.

• 41 Kruip 2015, p. 119.
• 42 Van Buren 2008, p. 95.
• 43 Pauwels 1995, p. 42.

25Production of amorial paintings for the Order of the Golden Fleece was only entrusted to court painters.41 This fact works in favour of the possible authorship of Jacob van Lathem, who was a court painter under Philip the Handsome and subsequently to Charles V (1500-1558). It is noteworthy that Jacob’s father, Lieven van Lathem (c. 1430-1493), was one of 166 painters, and the fourth highest paid, who worked on the decorations for the meeting of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Bruges in 1468.42 Allegedly, Lieven was also part of the retinue of Maximilian I of Austria on his visits to Bruges in 1487 and 1488, and his son Jacob might have accompanied his father on this trip as a collaborator.43 It is possible that Jacob, perhaps together with his father, worked on the paintings for the chapter in Mechelen as well. The connection between his father Lieven van Lathem, his work for the Order of the Golden Fleece, subsequently for Maximilian I of Austria, and Jacob’s work for Philip the Handsome might support this thesis. However, as no armorial panels by Jacob van Lathem have been preserved, we cannot compare the style of his production with those in Mechelen.

• 44 Kruip 2019.
• 45 See Neeffs 1878, p. 176; Laenen 1920; Van den Bergen-Pantens 1981, p. 100 and note 67 in this artic (...)
• 46 Thiry 2018b.

27The function of armorial panels made for the chapter was complex and of by no means ephemeral nature. As in the aforementioned series in the Hague, commissioned by Charles V to substitute the 1456 originals destroyed in a fire in 1539, the memorial function of the Mechelen panels was just as important as the representative one during the chapters themselves.44 In 1838, some of the panels having disappeared, the series was completed by reproductions made by the Brussels ‘painter-restorer’ Luyckx to preserve the memory of the chapter meeting.45As tangible traces of the Burgundian heritage, the heraldic panels of the Order of the Golden Fleece were also deployed by subsequent political authorities especially in times of political instability.46 However, here we will focus on how the panels were actually used, and which meanings were attributed to them during the chapters themselves.

• 47 Seitter 1982, p. 299-312.

28In a battle, the armorial shield served to protect the knight, but at the same time the coat of arms depicted on it also identified him, since the knight’s body and head were hidden behind armour. With regard to this function, Walter Seitter described shields as ‘the second body’.47 Although knights of the Order did not wear a suit of armour during the chapters, the armorial panels, which were placed above each knight’s seat in the church stalls [fig. 29], functioned in a similar way.

• 48 Belting 2011.
• 49 Seitter 1982, p. 300-301.
• 50 Belting 2011, p. 66.

29Heraldic paintings depict the genealogical body – the one that is not visible in the physical appearance of individuals.48 If the knight was personally present during the chapter, a unique synthesis was formed between him and his coats of arms depicted on the panel. However, even if the knight could not attend the meeting, he was present through his coat of arms. At the same time, through the armorial panel hanging above the seat, a person could have bestowed a coat of arms of the absent knight upon themselves and speak as a procurator in the knight’s name.49 This trait, among other things, led Hans Belting to claim that the armorial panels of knights belonging to the Order were treated as the real likenesses, as another kind of face. According to Belting, it is supported by the way the necklace is depicted, as if embracing the knight’s neck.50 The specific heraldic language supports this thesis.

• 51 See for instance the edition by Cignoni 1998.
• 52 Hablot 2017, p. 40.
• 53 Ibidem.
• 54 Kruip 2019, p. 176.

30When describing coats of arms, the term ‘dexter’ (right) is used for what we see on the left side, as if we see ourselves in the mirror. This has to do with the heraldic laterality, or rather, inversion of laterality, established by Bartolo da Sassoferrato in his treatise De Insigniis et Armis that became widespread in all parts of Europe by the fourteenth century.51 The author describes how coats of arms can create presence in absentia – by means of inversion, which was traditionally reserved only for living beings, or objects of the religious cult.52 Sassoferrato explains this by drawing analogy with the Scripture – behind which stands the God himself.53 The inversion is intended to conjure up what is behind the shield: the physical bodies of knights. The armorial panels, which stayed in the church even after the chapter has ended, thus established their presence in absentia. The placement of coats of arms in the sacred space heightened the religious nature of the Order, and, in reciprocity, it presented the knights as patrons of the Christian faith. Moreover, as coats of arms also featured territories under the knights’ rule and the chapters were held in various cities across the Burgundian realm, they displayed the territorial power of the Order too.54

• 55 Hablot 2013.

31The specific heraldic laterality might explain why heraldic animals always face the left. However, exceptions to this lateral rule occurred when coats of arms were positioned in the sacred space and its design was adapted to it.55 The coats of arms of the Order of the Golden Fleece are examples of such an exception. They were depicted in such a way that the helmet, crest, and the ram of the necklace faced the altar. This orientation differed according to the side on which the knights sat in the stalls of the choir, to the left (Gospel side) or right (Epistle side) of the altar.

• 56 See Korteweg 1996.
• 57 In the case of the 1491 Mechelen panels, the following members were already dead: John of Melleyn, (...)
• 58 The Mechelen series still has two examples of this type, the panels of Philippe Pot and of Jacques (...)

32The position of each knight followed strict rules established in the Statutes of the Order and several other texts.56 The sovereign sat in the front row, facing the altar, on the side of the epistle (right side). The knights were seated in two rows of fifteen in the stalls, facing each other. Their places, to the left (Gospel side) or right (Epistle side), were assigned at the time of their acceptance into the Order and did not change from one chapter to another. The organization was very hierarchical and took into account the seniority of the knight within the Order and his title (the kings being placed first on either side of the sovereign). If one of the members died between meetings, his seat was covered with a black sheet and a new coat of arms panel was created that did not include the helmet, torse and crest.57 If a member was excluded from the Order for serious misconduct, his coat of arms was removed from the choir and replaced by a panel on which the reason for his exclusion was written.58 In the next chapter, the seats of those who had died or who had been excluded from the Order became vacant and the other members moved forward one place in the direction of the altar, the newly elected taking their places at the opposite end.

• 59 Korteweg 1996, p. 219-220.
• 60 Vienna, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Archive of the Order of the Golden Fleece, box nr. 2, fol. 7v (...)

34The actual placing of the knights at the Mechelen Chapter is known from the minute books written by the Kings of Arms of the Golden Fleece after each meeting of the Order, preserved in Vienna. On the basis of these documents, Anne Korteweg published the seating arrangements of the knights in the church choir stalls from 1431 to 1491, which show that Philip sat on the fifteenth seat on the right side, corresponding to the current orientation of his coat of arms.59 However, in the minute books, two paintings with the coat of arms of Philip the Handsome are mentioned [fig. 32].60

• 61 Thiry 2014, p. 136.
• 62 Van Gestel 1725, p. 46-47.
• 63 They remained in their original positions above the choir stalls until the invasion of the French r (...)
• 64 Korteweg 1996, p. 217 and 219.

35Philip’s two panels illustrated his dual position during the chapter meeting. One was as count of Charolais and its description corresponds to the present panel. The title was reserved for the male heirs of the Burgundian dukes since the early fifteenth century61 and emphasized Philip’s identity as the ‘natural’ prince and Burgundian heir. The other panel identified Philip as the person who presided over the chapter in the absence of his father. It was to be placed under Maximilian’s coat of arms above the sovereign’s seat near the altar under a canopy ornamented with the arms of both men, but is now presumably lost. The presence of these two coats of arms of Philip the Handsome during the chapter is indeed likely as it is also mentioned by Cornelius Van Gestel in his Historia sacra et profana Archidiocesis Mechliniensis from 1725,62 which is based on archival materials and probably also on his personal observation as the coats of arms were still in the stalls at that time.63 Furthermore, the simultaneous presence of two armorial panels at the time of the passage from one head of the Order to another was not unprecedented. It happened during the chapter of 1468 when Charles the Bold succeeded Philip the Good and in 1478 when Maximilian succeeded Charles the Bold. Each time, the two armorial panels were placed above the seat of the sovereign.64

• 65 De Gruben 1997, p. 35-36; Simonneau 2019; Couhault 2020, p. 214-222.
• 66 De Reiffenberg 1830, p. 211. Because of his death, the appointment of his successor was discussed a (...)

37Thus, according to these written sources, the panel of Philip the Handsome as Count of Charolais was never hung on the left-hand side. The change in composition perhaps shows a change in the distribution of seats, or at least suggests some confusion. The organisation of the Mechelen chapter must indeed have been quite complex due to the tense political context, the absence of Maximilian, and the ten vacant seats that had to be filled due to the death or exclusion of members at the time of the last chapter in ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1481. In practice, the placement of the knights and the identification of their coats of arms was entrusted to the King of Arms of the Order called Golden Fleece.65 At the Mechelen chapter it was Gilles Gobet who occupied this position from 1468. The 1491 chapter was his last one since he died later that year.66 We have no information about his health at the time of the chapter preparation, nor we know to what extent Thomas Isaacq (?-1539/1540), his assistant and future successor, contributed to the organization, but this may also be the reason for the error in the panel of Philip the Handsome.

• 67 Luyckx probably made a mistake in the orientation of the ram, helmet and crest on the coats of arms (...)
• 68 De Reiffenberg 1830, p. 173.

38When looking at the whole series of coats of arms, there are other discrepancies that support the thesis that the change in composition occurred due to the chaotic context of creation and was simply a mistake. While some of these errors are explained by the fact that the paintings are copies from the nineteenth-century,67 others are contemporaneous with the organisation of the chapter. The fact that the coat of arms of John II of Valois, Duke of Alençon [fig. 34], who died in 1476 and whose panel had already been removed at the time of the 1481 chapter, was put back in the stalls is evidence of a certain confusion. It also does not seem logical that the coat of arms of Philip the Handsome was placed at the very end of the right row. In view of his rank as archduke and prince he should have been placed closer to the sovereign’s seat than the other new knights also elected in 1481, who were only lords. Archival documents published by Frédéric de Reiffenberg in 1830 show that Maximilian already considered delegating the ceremony to his son in July 1490.68 Knowing that Philip would not occupy his place as Count of Charolais but that of the head of the Order, it was probably considered preferable to fill the ranks with the new members. Only nine out of the thirty-one knights were present at the chapter of Mechelen due to death or absence [fig. 32].