Robert, thanks for that tip. A fine item. According to my reading the FdL was moved from the officer's epaulette to the tail of the coat, when regulations re. the former were changed, circa 1811. It may be, re-reading Brig Westrop's article (conveniently linked to the website), that there are no surviving epaulettes from the earlier period. That means that the two officers' portraits from 1795-97 may be the only known evidence for the FdL being worn on the epaullette, as well as the earliest evidence for use of the emblem (apparently on the sword belt plate as well). Both paintings date from the tail-end of a period following the AWI when quite a number of regiments had been informally adopting non-regulation emblems on coats and headgear. Curiously, in many cases something of a mist hangs over the origins of those emblems that survived into the 19th, and from which a number of cherished traditions have arisen.
The FdL of the 63rd is one of the few regimental emblems that was not challenged in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, perhaps because of the discreet place where, by that time it was being worn. The regimental papers having been lost at Helvoetsluys in January 1795, with no subsequent request to explain the FdL to the authorities, may explain why the origins were not recorded again and had been forgotten by 1855, when use of the emblem was discontinued, permission having been refused for lack of recorded authority. Why, when other similar emblems had been being authorised, or at least winked at, this strictness is difficult to explain. Perhaps it was the change in culture following the Duke of Cambridge's appointment as Commander-in-Chief in 1850.