Heraldic "flexibility"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tony Hoskins

Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 mar 2005 03:01:03

I think many of us sometimes labor under too restrictive and literal
notions of heraldic usage, failing to realize that, at various times and
in various situations and venues, hard and fast rules do not apply. A
case in point is the family of Wydevill. Recently reviewing data I had
gathered on my ancestress Mary (Poyntz) Gorges, I re-read Charles M.
Hansen and Neil D. Thompson’s article, “The Wydevill’s Quartering
for Beauchamp,” (_The Coat of Arms_, 9 (N.S.) (Spring 1992), pp.
178-187). In making the point that Richard Wydevill, 1st Earl Rivers’
use of the Beauchamp arms on his Garter stall in 1450 to some extent
flies in the face of received views on certain aspects of English
heraldry, I thought a few additional thoughts and comments might be of
interest to the group.

Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson said (p. 183), “That this quartering
[Beauchamp] was used despite the fact that neither Lord River’s
mother, Joan Bittlesgate, nor her mother, Joan Beauchamp, was an
heraldic heiress, was not unusual in a period of great heraldic
flexibility. His son Anthony [2nd Earl Rivers] quartered, along with the
Beauchamp arms, those of Luxemburg and Baux from the arms of his mother
Jacquetta de Luxemburg, even though she had several brothers who left
descendants.”

Later, re-reading Sir John Maclean’s _Memoir of the Family of Poyntz
_ (1886, reprt. 1983), I found additional proof that the seeming
heraldic anomaly of 1450 was certainly not an isolated instance. In
1520, 70 years after the above-referenced event, the 1st Earl Rivers’
grandson-in-law, Sir Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire,
died. Sir Robert’s wife had been was Margaret Wydevill, illegitimate
daughter of Anthony Wydevill, 2nd Earl Rivers. The heraldic bosses
installed over the remains of Sir Robert and Margaret (Wydevill), Lady
Poyntz in the ceiling of the Jesus Chapel in the Church of the Gaunts,
near Bristol, in about 1520-1 are of interest to this discussion.

Maclean stated (note 4, pp. 66-7 [illustr. p. 94]), “On the western
boss are the arms of Sir Robert himself… Poyntz, … Acton,…Clanvowe,…
Fitz Nicholl, impaling, Quarterly of six for his wife Margaret
Wydeville,… St. Paul [St. Pol],… (unknown),…Wydeville,… De Beaulx [des
Baux, del Balzo],…(unknown),…Beauchamp.”

So if one continues to hold that the 1st Earl Rivers’ use of the
Beauchamp arms in 1450 was odd - because his Beauchamp descent was not
from an heraldic heiress - what must one make of his illegitimate
granddaughter, Margaret (Wydevill) Poyntz’ use, not only of the
undifferenced Wydevill and the Beauchamp arms, but also the arms of her
illegitimate grandmother (again, not an heraldic heiress), Jacquette de
Luxembourg?

Clearly heraldry is not static, is never “pure”, and must always be
examined in its context. It can truly be said that heraldry must be
viewed as it was often used, flexibly.


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 03 mar 2005 03:29:39

In article <s225fd2c.030@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

I think many of us sometimes labor under too restrictive and literal
notions of heraldic usage, failing to realize that, at various times and
in various situations and venues, hard and fast rules do not apply. A
case in point is the family of Wydevill. Recently reviewing data I had
gathered on my ancestress Mary (Poyntz) Gorges, I re-read Charles M.
Hansen and Neil D. Thompsonis article, iThe Wydevillis Quartering
for Beauchamp,i (_The Coat of Arms_, 9 (N.S.) (Spring 1992), pp.
178-187). In making the point that Richard Wydevill, 1st Earl Riversi
use of the Beauchamp arms on his Garter stall in 1450 to some extent
flies in the face of received views on certain aspects of English
heraldry, I thought a few additional thoughts and comments might be of
interest to the group.

Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson said (p. 183), iThat this quartering
[Beauchamp] was used despite the fact that neither Lord Riveris
mother, Joan Bittlesgate, nor her mother, Joan Beauchamp, was an
heraldic heiress, was not unusual in a period of great heraldic
flexibility. His son Anthony [2nd Earl Rivers] quartered, along with the
Beauchamp arms, those of Luxemburg and Baux from the arms of his mother
Jacquetta de Luxemburg, even though she had several brothers who left
descendants.i

Later, re-reading Sir John Macleanis _Memoir of the Family of Poyntz
_ (1886, reprt. 1983), I found additional proof that the seeming
heraldic anomaly of 1450 was certainly not an isolated instance. In
1520, 70 years after the above-referenced event, the 1st Earl Riversi
grandson-in-law, Sir Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire,
died. Sir Robertis wife had been was Margaret Wydevill, illegitimate
daughter of Anthony Wydevill, 2nd Earl Rivers. The heraldic bosses
installed over the remains of Sir Robert and Margaret (Wydevill), Lady
Poyntz in the ceiling of the Jesus Chapel in the Church of the Gaunts,
near Bristol, in about 1520-1 are of interest to this discussion.

Maclean stated (note 4, pp. 66-7 [illustr. p. 94]), iOn the western
boss are the arms of Sir Robert himselfO Poyntz, O Acton,OClanvowe,O
Fitz Nicholl, impaling, Quarterly of six for his wife Margaret
Wydeville,O St. Paul [St. Pol],O (unknown),OWydeville,O De Beaulx [des
Baux, del Balzo],O(unknown),OBeauchamp.i

So if one continues to hold that the 1st Earl Riversi use of the
Beauchamp arms in 1450 was odd - because his Beauchamp descent was not
from an heraldic heiress - what must one make of his illegitimate
granddaughter, Margaret (Wydevill) Poyntzi use, not only of the
undifferenced Wydevill and the Beauchamp arms, but also the arms of her
illegitimate grandmother (again, not an heraldic heiress), Jacquette de
Luxembourg?

Clearly heraldry is not static, is never ipurei, and must always be
examined in its context. It can truly be said that heraldry must be
viewed as it was often used, flexibly.

This is a worthwhile point. What is less clear is when, both before and
after the fifteenth century, rules governing quarterings were defined
and defended. Another case similar to what you describe above is that
of the sons and grandsons of Sir Walter Blount and Sancha de Ayala
(through the fifteenth century), some of whom actually quartered the two
coats of Sancha de Ayala's paternal and maternal families *before*
Blount, though she had a brother who left significant issue. One common
explanation may be that descendants of 'foreign' families may have
quartered those arms as a token of distinction, even if they were not
heraldic heirs in the stricter sense. In the Blount case, the
descendants were the only English representatives of these Castilian
families; but perhaps the same cannot also be said of the families
behind Wydeville?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 mar 2005 10:07:49

In message of 3 Mar, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

<snip>

Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson said (p. 183), “That this quartering
[Beauchamp] was used despite the fact that neither Lord River’s
mother, Joan Bittlesgate, nor her mother, Joan Beauchamp, was an
heraldic heiress, was not unusual in a period of great heraldic
flexibility. His son Anthony [2nd Earl Rivers] quartered, along with the
Beauchamp arms, those of Luxemburg and Baux from the arms of his mother
Jacquetta de Luxemburg, even though she had several brothers who left
descendants.”

<snip>

Perhaps this apparent misuse of quarterings is because we have changed?
I have found a few such early quarterings that were also used by
families but where no heiress had been married. The Nevilles in
particular did this with the Clavering and Brittany arms. The College
of Arms endorses such quarterings certainly until very recent days.
Perhaps, even, we have it wrong about quarterings?

(Or should this be transferred to rec.heraldry?)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Tony Hoskins

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 mar 2005 00:31:01

Perhaps this apparent misuse of quarterings is because we have
changed? I have found a few such early quarterings that were also used

by families but where no heiress had been married. The Nevilles in
particular did this with the Clavering and Brittany arms. The College
of Arms endorses such quarterings certainly until very recent days.
Perhaps, even, we have it wrong about quarterings?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

What is less clear is when, both before and after the fifteenth
century, rules governing quarterings were defined

and defended. Another case similar to what you describe above is that
of the sons and grandsons of Sir Walter Blount and Sancha de Ayala
(through the fifteenth century), some of whom actually quartered the two
coats of Sancha de Ayala's paternal and maternal families *before*
Blount, though she had a brother who left significant issue. One common

explanation may be that descendants of 'foreign' families may have
quartered those arms as a token of distinction, even if they were not
heraldic heirs in the stricter sense. In the Blount case, the
descendants were the only English representatives of these Castilian
families; but perhaps the same cannot also be said of the families
behind Wydeville?

Nat Taylor
---

Dear Tim and Nat,

Thanks so much for your interesting words. To me, what seems to be
emerging is that our current views on heraldry often fail to take into
account a greater degree of variability, even whimsy, in the heraldry of
the past than they ought to. Not to mention that to merely describe the
15th Century (or whenever) as an isolated time of a sort of
non-compliance with a perhaps never-existing heraldry rubric misses the
point that heraldry through time may well have been much more subject to
improvissation than we would like to think.


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 mar 2005 02:03:10

In article <s2272c31.005@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

To me, what seems to be emerging is that our current views on heraldry
often fail to take into account a greater degree
of variability, even whimsy, in the heraldry of
the past than they ought to. Not to mention that to merely describe the
15th Century (or whenever) as an isolated time of a sort of
non-compliance with a perhaps never-existing heraldry rubric misses the
point that heraldry through time may well have been much more subject to
improvissation than we would like to think.

I agree. I did not mean to imply that the cases mentioned in this
thread are islands of anarchy sandwiched between earlier and later rigid
orthodoxies. I would be interested to see a broader study grossly
tabulating when the various perceived heraldic rules appear to have been
expressed as theory or followed as practice. I agree that we should
have open minds about actual practice unless dealing with demonstrable
rigidity.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 mar 2005 02:10:57

In message of 4 Mar, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <s2272c31.005@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

To me, what seems to be emerging is that our current views on heraldry
often fail to take into account a greater degree
of variability, even whimsy, in the heraldry of
the past than they ought to. Not to mention that to merely describe the
15th Century (or whenever) as an isolated time of a sort of
non-compliance with a perhaps never-existing heraldry rubric misses the
point that heraldry through time may well have been much more subject to
improvissation than we would like to think.

I agree. I did not mean to imply that the cases mentioned in this
thread are islands of anarchy sandwiched between earlier and later rigid
orthodoxies. I would be interested to see a broader study grossly
tabulating when the various perceived heraldic rules appear to have been
expressed as theory or followed as practice. I agree that we should
have open minds about actual practice unless dealing with demonstrable
rigidity.

I'll buy into that too. There are too many people laying down emphatic
"laws" of English heraldry that turn out not to be so.

Obviously other countries have their own practices so a study of one
does not say much about another.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gordon Johnson

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Gordon Johnson » 04 mar 2005 18:01:03

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 4 Mar, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:


In article <s2272c31.005@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:


To me, what seems to be emerging is that our current views on heraldry
often fail to take into account a greater degree
of variability, even whimsy, in the heraldry of
the past than they ought to. Not to mention that to merely describe the
15th Century (or whenever) as an isolated time of a sort of
non-compliance with a perhaps never-existing heraldry rubric misses the
point that heraldry through time may well have been much more subject to
improvissation than we would like to think.

I agree. I did not mean to imply that the cases mentioned in this
thread are islands of anarchy sandwiched between earlier and later rigid
orthodoxies. I would be interested to see a broader study grossly
tabulating when the various perceived heraldic rules appear to have been
expressed as theory or followed as practice. I agree that we should
have open minds about actual practice unless dealing with demonstrable
rigidity.


I'll buy into that too. There are too many people laying down emphatic
"laws" of English heraldry that turn out not to be so.

Obviously other countries have their own practices so a study of one
does not say much about another.

*** Another very basic consideration is that we tend to view heraldry in

the same way as we do modern approaches to genealogy. Back then,
heraldry was simply a means of saying who you are in a family line, and
it was natural enough for some families to do the best they could to
define themselves, even though strict heraldic rules were not being
observed.
We should not criticise people in the past for not adhering to rules
which they themselves may not have regarded as sacrosant.
Gordon Johnson.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 mar 2005 19:31:02

n article <s225fd2c.030@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

I think many of us sometimes labor under too restrictive and literal
notions of heraldic usage, failing to realize that, at various times
and
in various situations and venues, hard and fast rules do not apply.
A
case in point is the family of Wydevill. Recently reviewing data I
had
gathered on my ancestress Mary (Poyntz) Gorges, I re-read Charles M.
Hansen and Neil D. Thompsonis article, iThe Wydevillis Quartering
for Beauchamp,i (_The Coat of Arms_, 9 (N.S.) (Spring 1992), pp.
178-187). In making the point that Richard Wydevill, 1st Earl
Riversi
use of the Beauchamp arms on his Garter stall in 1450 to some extent
flies in the face of received views on certain aspects of English
heraldry, I thought a few additional thoughts and comments might be
of
interest to the group.

Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson said (p. 183), iThat this quartering
[Beauchamp] was used despite the fact that neither Lord Riveris
mother, Joan Bittlesgate, nor her mother, Joan Beauchamp, was an
heraldic heiress, was not unusual in a period of great heraldic
flexibility. His son Anthony [2nd Earl Rivers] quartered, along with
the
Beauchamp arms, those of Luxemburg and Baux from the arms of his
mother
Jacquetta de Luxemburg, even though she had several brothers who
left
descendants.i

Later, re-reading Sir John Macleanis _Memoir of the Family of Poyntz
_ (1886, reprt. 1983), I found additional proof that the seeming
heraldic anomaly of 1450 was certainly not an isolated instance. In
1520, 70 years after the above-referenced event, the 1st Earl
Riversi
grandson-in-law, Sir Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire,
died. Sir Robertis wife had been was Margaret Wydevill,
illegitimate
daughter of Anthony Wydevill, 2nd Earl Rivers. The heraldic bosses
installed over the remains of Sir Robert and Margaret (Wydevill),
Lady
Poyntz in the ceiling of the Jesus Chapel in the Church of the
Gaunts,
near Bristol, in about 1520-1 are of interest to this discussion.

Maclean stated (note 4, pp. 66-7 [illustr. p. 94]), iOn the western
boss are the arms of Sir Robert himselfO Poyntz, O Acton,OClanvowe,O
Fitz Nicholl, impaling, Quarterly of six for his wife Margaret
Wydeville,O St. Paul [St. Pol],O (unknown),OWydeville,O De Beaulx
[des
Baux, del Balzo],O(unknown),OBeauchamp.i

So if one continues to hold that the 1st Earl Riversi use of the
Beauchamp arms in 1450 was odd - because his Beauchamp descent was
not
from an heraldic heiress - what must one make of his illegitimate
granddaughter, Margaret (Wydevill) Poyntzi use, not only of the
undifferenced Wydevill and the Beauchamp arms, but also the arms of
her


Another case similar to what you describe above is that of the sons
and grandsons of Sir Walter Blount and Sancha de Ayala (through the

fifteenth century), some of whom actually quartered the two coats of
Sancha de Ayala's paternal and maternal families *before* Blount,
though she had a brother who left significant issue. One common
explanation may be that descendants of 'foreign' families may have
quartered those arms as a token of distinction, even if they were not
heraldic heirs in the stricter sense. In the Blount case, the
descendants were the only English representatives of these Castilian
families; but perhaps the same cannot also be said of the families
behind Wydeville?

Nat Taylor


---
Hello Nat,

These points you raise are good and important. I tend to observe, in
cases where a man of a relatively rather obscure, though armigerous
family married *substantially* "up", heraldic preemptions and other
related oddities often appeared. And, especially so, I think, when (as
you mention) the grander family is "foreign". And of course Margaret
(Wydevill) Poyntz could in no possible way have been construed as a
representative, even if solely in England, of the line of her great
grandfather, Pierre de Luxembourg, Comte de St Pol, Brienne, and
Conversano.

I also wonder, given the apparent fluidity the Castilian nobility's
surname usage in the 14th and 15th centuries, if the Ayala heraldry to
which you refer might not be reflective of or repsonsive to that
particular reality of nomenclature.

All best,

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 mar 2005 11:42:14

I am inclined to think that these deviations from the norm were in fact
caused by the wish to aggrandize themselves of the various families.
In the case of Garter stall plates, these are specifically excluded
from the jurisdiction of the heralds, so can not be considered as
evidence more persuasive for their prominence. I think that arms were
accepted as descending according to the feudal rules for the descent of
land. Therefore when they were adopted contrary to these rules they
were strictly incorrect. Whether any incorrect quarterings were
officially recognised I don't know, but I would imagine that that could
easily have happened. Evenso, it would have been an abuse of the
system. That is why, for example, there was an Act, in both the
Scottish and English Parliaments in 1672 to stop these abuses.

So I think that we must distinguish carefully between historical
evidence of what did happen, and the correctness of it happening. That
is to say, just because the "so-called" rules were broken does not
prove that the "so-called" rules were not regarded as rules at the
time. My opinion is that they probably were, but that there was a
greater tolerance of rule-breaking than there is today.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 mar 2005 15:07:40

In message of 6 Mar, "Alex Maxwell Findlater"
<maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am inclined to think that these deviations from the norm were in fact
caused by the wish to aggrandize themselves of the various families.
In the case of Garter stall plates, these are specifically excluded
from the jurisdiction of the heralds, so can not be considered as
evidence more persuasive for their prominence. I think that arms were
accepted as descending according to the feudal rules for the descent of
land. Therefore when they were adopted contrary to these rules they
were strictly incorrect. Whether any incorrect quarterings were
officially recognised I don't know, but I would imagine that that could
easily have happened.

Some incorrect quarterings were officially recognised for my grandfather
and signed by the Clarenceux king of arms in c. 1927. You can find
several examples of the same errors in Fox-Davies' Armorial Families
volumes and he tried to work only from College of Arms documents.

Even so, it would have been an abuse of the system. That is why, for
example, there was an Act, in both the Scottish and English
Parliaments in 1672 to stop these abuses.

Can you tell us more about this Act?

So I think that we must distinguish carefully between historical
evidence of what did happen, and the correctness of it happening.
That is to say, just because the "so-called" rules were broken does
not prove that the "so-called" rules were not regarded as rules at the
time. My opinion is that they probably were, but that there was a
greater tolerance of rule-breaking than there is today.

I like that one: "They were rules but people did not follow them so they
weren't rules"!

Is this for s.g.m? Or for rec.heraldry? Perhaps it is a caution
against accepting heraldic evidence as genealogical evidence, so
relevant here?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2005 23:18:08

Is this for s.g.m? Or for rec.heraldry? Perhaps it is a caution
against accepting heraldic evidence as genealogical evidence, so
relevant here?


Tim Powys-Lybbe


This post, and the various useful facts and views expressed above, is
spot-on for s.g.m. There are plenty of Visitations records, for
example, that contain quarterings which are perhaps the only evidence
remaining that one family is descended from another - or are considered
as such. Unfortunately, as is often pointed out here, the Visitation
records themselves are often faulty.

For example, the Bishop family were allowed at the 1633 Vis. of London
various quarterings, said to come to them by virtue of a marriage to a
Milborne heiress. Looking at primary records available today, the
first problem is that the Bishops concerned probably did not descend
from the Bishop-Milborne marriage of about 1500. In any case, the
Milbornes are given amongst their quarterings "Verdun", apparently
through the Furnival family. Second problem: the Verdun-Furnival
marriage was a generation after the Milborne ancestral line branched
off.

Due to various heiresses in the Milborne line, I know of many families
whose Visitation records includes this rogue quartering (e.g. Rudhall,
Herefordshire 1569; Hackluyt, same; Foliot, Worcestershire 1569; as
well as its repeat in further Bishop entries such as Hampshire 1686)
and it makes its appearance on tombs as well (e.g. see description of
Rudhall tomb, Duncomb's County of Hereford, Vol 3, p 124), thus
publishing and perpetuating the error further.

Of course, in other cases, monuments displaying arms often betoken
alleigance rather than relationship, although I can't think off the top
of my head of any cases where this has been done by means of quartering.

Ginny Wagner

Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 25 aug 2005 23:38:02

I have a family that began with one heraldry (well, actually several
similar) but it changed. According to CTG the Gorram family had three
lions rampant (one lion, lions at rest, etc.) as late as 13c but by
the time of Cornelius Gorham it had become three shackbolts joined.

The lions occur fairly frequently in heraldry; however, three
shackbolts -- or any shackbolts, are unique -- I've gone through pages
and pages of Brian Timms' heraldry without finding another instance.

What am I missing?

Ginny Wagner

fairthorne

Balsac and Chabannes

Legg inn av fairthorne » 26 aug 2005 00:10:02

Hi folks

You responded so well to my last query I'm encouraged to scrounge again

Anselme II p437
gives
Rossec de Balsac married Jeanne d'Albon contract 16 February 1453

Rossec was the son of Jean de Balsac and Agnes de Chabannes

Anselme VII p131
gives
Agnes de Chabannes who married Jean de Balsac was the daughter of Jacques de
Chabannes and his second wife Anne de Lavieu, who were married in 1435

Query: surely there is something wrong, 18 years from marriage to marriage
of grandson is a bit short

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2005 07:36:09

Yes, it is ironic that they had a Verdun descent nevertheless.

The order of the quarterings normally indicates the place in the
genealogy that the heiress filled: for Bishop (London 1633 & Hampshire
1686), and for Hackluy, Rudhall and Foliot as detailed above, the
quarterings appears: Milborne, then Eylesford, then Furnival, the
Verdun, then Luvetot, followed by Baskerville [Foliot goes on to
enumerate a further seven Baskerville quarterings] and finishing with
Blackett. This makes it clear that Verdun is said to come in via
Furnival - a misreading of the generation in which a Furnival-Verdun
match took place.

Interestingly, none of them quarters Devereux. The only thing
reminiscant of a Devereux quartering connected with this line I have
found is Baskerville, in the Visitation of Herefordshire, 1531, which
is clearly muddled: 1. Lienthall (sic - NB not Baskerville!), 2.
"Argent, a fess, in chief three roundels [sic] gules, 3. Baskerville,
4. Pychard.

The Rudhall tomb has the order of the quarterings described
differently, viz Milborne then Verdun, then Furnival, then Whittington,
then Hyndford, then Baskerville, then Luvetot, then Blackett, but as I
have not seen this monument I cannot say whether this is merely an
artistic presentation of separate shields as noted above.

MAR

Gjest

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2005 08:02:01

mjcar writes:-

<Milbornes are given amongst their quarterings "Verdun", apparently
<through the Furnival family.
<snip>
<Due to various heiresses in the Milborne line, I know of many families
<whose Visitation records includes this rogue quartering (e.g. Rudhall,
<Herefordshire 1569; Hackluyt, same; Foliot, Worcestershire 1569; as
<well as its repeat in further Bishop entries such as Hampshire 1686)
<and it makes its appearance on tombs as well (e.g. see description of
<Rudhall tomb, Duncomb's County of Hereford, Vol 3, p 124), thus
<publishing and perpetuating the error further.
<snip>

A more obvious Verdun/Milborne link is that Simon Milborne of Tillington
married Elizabeth Devereux, whose father Sir Walter Devereux was
entitled to quarter Verdon (or, a fret gules) by virtue of his descent from
Margaret, daughter and coheiress of Theobald, last Baron Verdon.

Of course, Elizabeth Devereux was not herself her father's heiress: but
I do not know how rigorously the rules were applied in her day.

Can mjcar say whether the Rudhalls and Hackluyts also quartered the
Devereux arms (argent, a fess beneath three torteaux gules)? If they
did, however improperly, might that indicate that they were claiming
the arms of Verdon as well as those of Devereux by virtue of the
Milborne/Devereux marriage?
MM

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 aug 2005 10:04:59

In message of 26 Aug, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

mjcar writes:-

Milbornes are given amongst their quarterings "Verdun", apparently
through the Furnival family.
snip
Due to various heiresses in the Milborne line, I know of many families
whose Visitation records includes this rogue quartering (e.g. Rudhall,
Herefordshire 1569; Hackluyt, same; Foliot, Worcestershire 1569; as
well as its repeat in further Bishop entries such as Hampshire 1686)
and it makes its appearance on tombs as well (e.g. see description of
Rudhall tomb, Duncomb's County of Hereford, Vol 3, p 124), thus
publishing and perpetuating the error further.
snip

A more obvious Verdun/Milborne link is that Simon Milborne of
Tillington married Elizabeth Devereux, whose father Sir Walter
Devereux was entitled to quarter Verdon (or, a fret gules) by virtue
of his descent from Margaret, daughter and coheiress of Theobald,
last Baron Verdon.

Of course, Elizabeth Devereux was not herself her father's heiress:
but I do not know how rigorously the rules were applied in her day.

I have some evidence that the English College of Arms recognises
quarterings where:

(a) The lady concerned had brothers whose issues survived at least
for many centuries,
(b) The lady concerned was illegitimate,
(c) The father of the lady concerned never had arms as he lived long
before arms were invented,
(d) (a variation on (a) ) while the lady concerned had surviving
brothers, she was an heiress in the financial sense, having large
inheritances,
(e) The lady concerned whose arms were quartered was not in fact
married to any ancestor in the family that was displaying the
quartering, nor was she an ancestor,
(f) The lady or her father was attainted so that nothing, arms
included, can be inherited from the father.

I have been advised that to resolve these would cost the earth as the
enquirer would have to pay substantial fees for the heralds who worked
on each.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Richard C. Browning, Jr.

RE: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Richard C. Browning, Jr. » 27 aug 2005 20:44:02

Ginny,

The entry for Shackbolt in "A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN HERALDRY by JAMES PARKER" (See
the excellent website http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/ ), says "see fetterlock".
Looking at that there are several people that used that charge on there arms.

Hope this helps.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX


-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Wagner [mailto:ginnywagner@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 16:37
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Heraldic "flexibility"


I have a family that began with one heraldry (well, actually several
similar) but it changed. According to CTG the Gorram family had three
lions rampant (one lion, lions at rest, etc.) as late as 13c but by
the time of Cornelius Gorham it had become three shackbolts joined.

The lions occur fairly frequently in heraldry; however, three
shackbolts -- or any shackbolts, are unique -- I've gone through pages
and pages of Brian Timms' heraldry without finding another instance.

What am I missing?

Ginny Wagner


Ginny Wagner

RE: Heraldic "flexibility"

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 27 aug 2005 22:25:01

Thank you very much, Richard. Although the manuscript with the
miniature .gifs seems to have directory problems (and I wasn't able to
enjoy the various shields, etc.), thanks to your excellent direction,
I was able to find the term fetter lock.

The rounded shackbolt/fetterlock of the Shakerly family, as described,
seems quite similar to the appearance of the arms reproduced in the
front of my fifty-year-old genealogy book (Sir Hugh de Gorham is "Gu.
three shack bolts conjoined in fess or.") with shack bolts, or fetter
locks, of more an oval shape than the bolted fetter lock.

I also obtained a copy of Reverend George Cornelius Gorham's arms;
they, too, have three "bolted, conjoined, fetter locks". As well,
Thomas de Gorham, a Templar to Richard II, had the three conjoined,
bolted fetter locks. Sir Hugh's crest was a Griffin's head couped,
wings displayed or; motto, "Ready and Faithful".

Sir Hugh was ca. 1324, Thomas ca. 1380, George Cornelius ca. 1850.
The three lions rampant were of William de Gorram, Lord of Tanniere
and Templar, ca. 1198 and Robert de Gorham, living 1235, also of
Tanniere in Maine.

A distant cousin, a 32 degree Mason, suggested the three conjoined
were representative of the Trinity, three in one. Of course, the
prisoner idea can certainly be expanded to represent adherent to or
being totally of the Faith. He also sent me a document with a picture
of another coat of arms that wasn't very well footnoted and had no
name to reference of "Gules three shackle bolts conjoined in fesse
point or. Crest: A sword in pole supporting on he point a garland
of laurel proper." It is similar to the one for Sir Hugh in that
there is a helm atop and greenery around but rather than a griffin, it
has a sword in pole with a garland atop; the shackle bolts have the
bolts and are conjoined in a horizontal line with the rounded edges up
whereas the Sir Hugh shackle bolts are like three oval rings joined
horizontally by the ovals. The unnamed coat of arms is joined along a
straight line horizontally with the straight edges joined and
semicircles standing up, unjoined, from the straight bolts.

If ready and faithful were looked at as beholden to a Supreme power
rather than an earthly one; ready for the second coming and full of
faith, carries a very strong literal as well as symbolic meaning. In
light of the family's history ... one of service to the Church ... it
all comes together.

Guess I'll take a look at the Shakerly family and see if I can learn a
bit about them since they have a similar coat of arms.

Thank you so much for your help with this. ;-) Ginny

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»