Among the papers of the Court of Chivalry in the College of Arms in
London is the following 1635 submission (i.e, acknowledgement of
wrongdoing) by one Nathaniel Hawthorne of Cookham, Berkshire:
Being but a yeoman & no gentleman and that notwithstanding that by the
Officers of Armes in a visitation held at Ockingham in anno 1623 or
thereabouts I was proscribed and proclaymed not to be a gentleman, yet
that I have since ... assumed and used the name and title of gentleman
in contempt of the Lawes of Armes and of the Court aforesaid, I the
said Nathaniel Hawthorne doe humbly confesse and acknowledge that in so
doing I did much forgett my selfe and my duty and the honor and respect
I ought to have had to the gentry lawes and officers of Armes of the
kingedome, and doe promise henceforth not to arrogate use or assume any
such title except I be lawfully called or intituled thereto hereafter.
[G. D. Squibb, _The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in
England_ (Oxford, 1959), p. 212]
I think this was the brother of the first American Hathorne /
Hawthorne, and an ancestral uncle of the famous novelist.
The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
In article <1112311821.818137.82040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:
Interesting. Do any of the published visitation volumes contain such
negative findings, with genealogical statements about non-gentry
families--say, a three-generation pedigree of someone falsely bearing
arms, showing that the bearer was grandson of a yeoman and not entitled
to arms?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:
Among the papers of the Court of Chivalry in the College of Arms in
London is the following 1635 submission (i.e, acknowledgement of
wrongdoing) by one Nathaniel Hawthorne of Cookham, Berkshire:
Being but a yeoman & no gentleman and that notwithstanding that by the
Officers of Armes in a visitation held at Ockingham in anno 1623 or
thereabouts I was proscribed and proclaymed not to be a gentleman, yet
that I have since ... assumed and used the name and title of gentleman
in contempt of the Lawes of Armes and of the Court aforesaid, I the
said Nathaniel Hawthorne doe humbly confesse and acknowledge that in so
doing I did much forgett my selfe and my duty and the honor and respect
I ought to have had to the gentry lawes and officers of Armes of the
kingedome, and doe promise henceforth not to arrogate use or assume any
such title except I be lawfully called or intituled thereto hereafter.
[G. D. Squibb, _The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in
England_ (Oxford, 1959), p. 212]
I think this was the brother of the first American Hathorne /
Hawthorne, and an ancestral uncle of the famous novelist.
Interesting. Do any of the published visitation volumes contain such
negative findings, with genealogical statements about non-gentry
families--say, a three-generation pedigree of someone falsely bearing
arms, showing that the bearer was grandson of a yeoman and not entitled
to arms?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
In message of 4 Apr, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
Some of the Visitation books have a list of "disclaimers" which included
both those whom the herald thought unfit for arms and those who did not
wish to pay the herald's fee.
One or two of these lists include a reaon for the disclaimer and it was
almost imvairable "no gentleman". I have yet to see the word "yeoman"
given in this context.
However I have come to the conclusion that the heralds used the words
"armiger" and "gentleman" as equivalents without any clear definition
of what was meant by either.
Occasionally a herald would go bananas on a chap who they did not think
fit to bear arms and would destroy any representation of arms that he
may have displayed. Even more spectacular were the old ceremonies of
expelling a garter knight: his arms were torn from his stall in St
George's chapel and unceremoniously kicked out and down the steps.
(The late emperor of Japan was supended from being a (royal as opposed
to one of the 25 fighting) garter knight, but I don't think they had
any ceremony for this.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In article <1112311821.818137.82040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:
Among the papers of the Court of Chivalry in the College of Arms in
London is the following 1635 submission (i.e, acknowledgement of
wrongdoing) by one Nathaniel Hawthorne of Cookham, Berkshire:
Being but a yeoman & no gentleman and that notwithstanding that by the
Officers of Armes in a visitation held at Ockingham in anno 1623 or
thereabouts I was proscribed and proclaymed not to be a gentleman, yet
that I have since ... assumed and used the name and title of gentleman
in contempt of the Lawes of Armes and of the Court aforesaid, I the
said Nathaniel Hawthorne doe humbly confesse and acknowledge that in so
doing I did much forgett my selfe and my duty and the honor and respect
I ought to have had to the gentry lawes and officers of Armes of the
kingedome, and doe promise henceforth not to arrogate use or assume any
such title except I be lawfully called or intituled thereto hereafter.
[G. D. Squibb, _The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in
England_ (Oxford, 1959), p. 212]
I think this was the brother of the first American Hathorne /
Hawthorne, and an ancestral uncle of the famous novelist.
Interesting. Do any of the published visitation volumes contain such
negative findings, with genealogical statements about non-gentry
families--say, a three-generation pedigree of someone falsely bearing
arms, showing that the bearer was grandson of a yeoman and not entitled
to arms?
Some of the Visitation books have a list of "disclaimers" which included
both those whom the herald thought unfit for arms and those who did not
wish to pay the herald's fee.
One or two of these lists include a reaon for the disclaimer and it was
almost imvairable "no gentleman". I have yet to see the word "yeoman"
given in this context.
However I have come to the conclusion that the heralds used the words
"armiger" and "gentleman" as equivalents without any clear definition
of what was meant by either.
Occasionally a herald would go bananas on a chap who they did not think
fit to bear arms and would destroy any representation of arms that he
may have displayed. Even more spectacular were the old ceremonies of
expelling a garter knight: his arms were torn from his stall in St
George's chapel and unceremoniously kicked out and down the steps.
(The late emperor of Japan was supended from being a (royal as opposed
to one of the 25 fighting) garter knight, but I don't think they had
any ceremony for this.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
In article <1edf09564d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
Thanks. Along with such simple disclaimers I'm wondering whether
there's ever a descent given which proves it--noting, perhaps, that the
pretender is the grandson of a cobbler or some-such? I suspect not,
since the heralds were more interested in recording the real armigerous
families rather than the false. But I've been interested in genealogies
compiled to prove that families fell below a certain status threshold
rather than above it (for example: curia regis lawsuits proving that a
defendant is a serf by descent), so if you are aware of any such
information from a visitation book I'd be interested to hear it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 4 Apr, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <1112311821.818137.82040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:
Among the papers of the Court of Chivalry in the College of Arms in
London is the following 1635 submission (i.e, acknowledgement of
wrongdoing) by one Nathaniel Hawthorne of Cookham, Berkshire:
Being but a yeoman & no gentleman and that notwithstanding that by the
Officers of Armes in a visitation held at Ockingham in anno 1623 or
thereabouts I was proscribed and proclaymed not to be a gentleman, yet
that I have since ... assumed and used the name and title of gentleman
in contempt of the Lawes of Armes and of the Court aforesaid, I the
said Nathaniel Hawthorne doe humbly confesse and acknowledge that in so
doing I did much forgett my selfe and my duty and the honor and respect
I ought to have had to the gentry lawes and officers of Armes of the
kingedome, and doe promise henceforth not to arrogate use or assume any
such title except I be lawfully called or intituled thereto hereafter.
[G. D. Squibb, _The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in
England_ (Oxford, 1959), p. 212]
I think this was the brother of the first American Hathorne /
Hawthorne, and an ancestral uncle of the famous novelist.
Interesting. Do any of the published visitation volumes contain such
negative findings, with genealogical statements about non-gentry
families--say, a three-generation pedigree of someone falsely bearing
arms, showing that the bearer was grandson of a yeoman and not entitled
to arms?
Some of the Visitation books have a list of "disclaimers" which included
both those whom the herald thought unfit for arms and those who did not
wish to pay the herald's fee.
One or two of these lists include a reaon for the disclaimer and it was
almost imvairable "no gentleman". I have yet to see the word "yeoman"
given in this context.
However I have come to the conclusion that the heralds used the words
"armiger" and "gentleman" as equivalents without any clear definition
of what was meant by either.
Thanks. Along with such simple disclaimers I'm wondering whether
there's ever a descent given which proves it--noting, perhaps, that the
pretender is the grandson of a cobbler or some-such? I suspect not,
since the heralds were more interested in recording the real armigerous
families rather than the false. But I've been interested in genealogies
compiled to prove that families fell below a certain status threshold
rather than above it (for example: curia regis lawsuits proving that a
defendant is a serf by descent), so if you are aware of any such
information from a visitation book I'd be interested to hear it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
In message of 4 Apr, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
Never seen such and I have all the Harleian visitation books (on CDROM I
hasten to add) and have gone through each diligently page by page.
They were usually accused of being most interested in collecting their
fees. (Round is hugely entertaining on the habits of the heralds of
old.)
Will do. But I'm surprised at such lawsuits as English society was
remerkably fluid compared to continental ones and people literally could
rise through the ranks in quite short order. (And fall as well if they
were so inclined.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In article <1edf09564d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
<snip>
Some of the Visitation books have a list of "disclaimers" which
included both those whom the herald thought unfit for arms and
those who did not wish to pay the herald's fee.
One or two of these lists include a reaon for the disclaimer and it
was almost imvariably "no gentleman". I have yet to see the word
"yeoman" given in this context.
However I have come to the conclusion that the heralds used the
words "armiger" and "gentleman" as equivalents without any clear
definition of what was meant by either.
Thanks. Along with such simple disclaimers I'm wondering whether
there's ever a descent given which proves it--noting, perhaps, that
the pretender is the grandson of a cobbler or some-such?
Never seen such and I have all the Harleian visitation books (on CDROM I
hasten to add) and have gone through each diligently page by page.
I suspect not, since the heralds were more interested in recording
the real armigerous families rather than the false.
They were usually accused of being most interested in collecting their
fees. (Round is hugely entertaining on the habits of the heralds of
old.)
But I've been interested in genealogies compiled to prove that
families fell below a certain status threshold rather than above it
(for example: curia regis lawsuits proving that a defendant is a serf
by descent), so if you are aware of any such information from a
visitation book I'd be interested to hear it.
Will do. But I'm surprised at such lawsuits as English society was
remerkably fluid compared to continental ones and people literally could
rise through the ranks in quite short order. (And fall as well if they
were so inclined.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Matthew Hovius
Re: The submission of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1635)
Poor Nathaniel. At least one instance of someone actually getting away
with such heraldic hoodwinking seems to involve the Nortons of
Sharpenhoe, discussed at length in this forum a couple of years ago.
The oft-mentioned Visitation of Bedfordshire 1634 assigns arms for
"Norton al's Neruile" to this family, including Thomas Norton, the
distinguished parliamentarian (or Rackmaster, depending on your
viewpoint). Yet as Michael A.R. Graves points out on page 406 of his
excellent biography of Norton, 'Little is known of the Norton
pedigree... All that can be said with certainty is that Norton's recent
forebears, including his father, were Bedfordshire yeomanry.'
I'm not aware of any grant of arms to Thomas or his immediate ancestors
and have to assume that the Herald, for whatever reason, £ooked the
other way when examining this family's claim to arms.
starbuck95 wrote:
with such heraldic hoodwinking seems to involve the Nortons of
Sharpenhoe, discussed at length in this forum a couple of years ago.
The oft-mentioned Visitation of Bedfordshire 1634 assigns arms for
"Norton al's Neruile" to this family, including Thomas Norton, the
distinguished parliamentarian (or Rackmaster, depending on your
viewpoint). Yet as Michael A.R. Graves points out on page 406 of his
excellent biography of Norton, 'Little is known of the Norton
pedigree... All that can be said with certainty is that Norton's recent
forebears, including his father, were Bedfordshire yeomanry.'
I'm not aware of any grant of arms to Thomas or his immediate ancestors
and have to assume that the Herald, for whatever reason, £ooked the
other way when examining this family's claim to arms.
starbuck95 wrote:
Among the papers of the Court of Chivalry in the College of Arms in
London is the following 1635 submission (i.e, acknowledgement of
wrongdoing) by one Nathaniel Hawthorne of Cookham, Berkshire: