Heraldry and kinship

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 okt 2005 21:23:01

I wonder whether members of the group have any ideas as to whether close
similarities in armorial bearings borne by different people in the 12th and 13th
centuries, not otherwise known to be related, are to be taken as a clue to (or
perhaps even evidence of) their kinship?

An example of what I mean can be found in the close similarity between the
arms of Whittington (Gules a fess checky or and azure) and those of the folowing
individuals, which I have borrowed from Brian Timms' remarkable heraldic
website
http://www.briantimms.com/era/armsrollsblazons.htm

All the following devices appear following "checky or and azure":-
a fess gules Robert de Clifford
a fess gules Raoul de Beaugency
a fess gules Roger de Clifford
a fess gules fretty argent Robert de Cheney
on a bend gules three lions passant argent John de Clifford
on a fess gules a dexter lion rampant argent Simon de Beaugency
on a fess gules three buckles argent Hugh Deincourt
on a fess gules three cinquefoils argent Roger de Clifford
on a fess gules three lions rampant argent Geoffrey de Pitchford
on a fess gules three mullets argent Walter de Capel

Meanwhile, again from Brian Timms, we have checky or and azure (or azure and
or) with no other device or charge, borne by William and John Warenne Earls of
Surrey, Baudouin d'Usse and Mahier de Lannoy. And some Cliffords are shown
with bends, rather than fesses, gules.

It will be noticed that the Whittington arms are the precise inverse of those
of Clifford- the ones who had a fess rather than a bend.

Looking no further than the names mentioned above, is is clear that small
differences in blazonry occurred among people who were obviously closely related-
Cliffords, Beaugencys. And the Clifford/Deincourt relationship has often been
mentioned in the group. I am tempted therefore, at the risk of perpetrating
an horrendous non sequitur, to suggest that closely similar arms may indeed be
a mark of kinship. Do other contributors know better?

In the case of the Whittingtons, I do not know their provenance. They first
appear, so far as I know, when a William married the d'Aguillon heiress of
Upton Solers in Warwickshire in the mid 1200s. (They retained the manor for
another three centures in a direct male line of descent). But the Fitzwarrens were
at that time the lords of Whittington in Shropshire. I wonder whether the fess
checky was a badge of their relationship? Or perhaps of feudal dependance? It
is probable that the Pitchfords, a very ancient Shropshire family, were
dependants of the Fitzwarrens, though quite possibly not related to them in blood
(for all I know)
All suggestions gratefully received, as ever
MM

Chris Phillips

Re: Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 24 okt 2005 22:22:14

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I wonder whether members of the group have any ideas as to whether close
similarities in armorial bearings borne by different people in the 12th
and 13th
centuries, not otherwise known to be related, are to be taken as a clue to
(or
perhaps even evidence of) their kinship?

I think similar arms could alternatively indicate a feudal relationship
between the families (though of course, there could be both a feudal
relationship and a blood relationship).

Chris Phillips

Guy Vincent

Re: Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Guy Vincent » 24 okt 2005 23:19:02

Last year I raised this issue with the Royal College of Arms over the
arms of Vincent being seemingly
identical with those of Hatcliffe of Lincolnshire. At one stage the
Vincents had lived fairly close to the
Hatcliffes. The reply I received implied that this wasn't necessarily
any indication of a family connection
and that it was not unique to have identical arms independently and
coincidently.

Guy Vincent

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

I wonder whether members of the group have any ideas as to whether close
similarities in armorial bearings borne by different people in the 12th and 13th
centuries, not otherwise known to be related, are to be taken as a clue to (or
perhaps even evidence of) their kinship?

An example of what I mean can be found in the close similarity between the
arms of Whittington (Gules a fess checky or and azure) and those of the folowing
individuals, which I have borrowed from Brian Timms' remarkable heraldic
website
http://www.briantimms.com/era/armsrollsblazons.htm

All the following devices appear following "checky or and azure":-
a fess gules Robert de Clifford
a fess gules Raoul de Beaugency
a fess gules Roger de Clifford
a fess gules fretty argent Robert de Cheney
on a bend gules three lions passant argent John de Clifford
on a fess gules a dexter lion rampant argent Simon de Beaugency
on a fess gules three buckles argent Hugh Deincourt
on a fess gules three cinquefoils argent Roger de Clifford
on a fess gules three lions rampant argent Geoffrey de Pitchford
on a fess gules three mullets argent Walter de Capel

Meanwhile, again from Brian Timms, we have checky or and azure (or azure and
or) with no other device or charge, borne by William and John Warenne Earls of
Surrey, Baudouin d'Usse and Mahier de Lannoy. And some Cliffords are shown
with bends, rather than fesses, gules.

It will be noticed that the Whittington arms are the precise inverse of those
of Clifford- the ones who had a fess rather than a bend.

Looking no further than the names mentioned above, is is clear that small
differences in blazonry occurred among people who were obviously closely related-
Cliffords, Beaugencys. And the Clifford/Deincourt relationship has often been
mentioned in the group. I am tempted therefore, at the risk of perpetrating
an horrendous non sequitur, to suggest that closely similar arms may indeed be
a mark of kinship. Do other contributors know better?

In the case of the Whittingtons, I do not know their provenance. They first
appear, so far as I know, when a William married the d'Aguillon heiress of
Upton Solers in Warwickshire in the mid 1200s. (They retained the manor for
another three centures in a direct male line of descent). But the Fitzwarrens were
at that time the lords of Whittington in Shropshire. I wonder whether the fess
checky was a badge of their relationship? Or perhaps of feudal dependance? It
is probable that the Pitchfords, a very ancient Shropshire family, were
dependants of the Fitzwarrens, though quite possibly not related to them in blood
(for all I know)
All suggestions gratefully received, as ever
MM




Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 25 okt 2005 00:39:44

In message of 24 Oct, Vincentgsv@aol.com (Guy Vincent) wrote:

Last year I raised this issue with the Royal College of Arms

I think they are not 'Royal'. see http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk .

over the arms of Vincent being seemingly
identical with those of Hatcliffe of Lincolnshire. At one stage the
Vincents had lived fairly close to the
Hatcliffes. The reply I received implied that this wasn't necessarily
any indication of a family connection
and that it was not unique to have identical arms independently and
coincidently.

I am delighted to hear this and to agree with it. Just have a look at
any Ordinary of arms, eg Papworth's, and for many blazons you see loads
of families with the same arms. It was almost inevitable in the early
days of heraldry when people designed their own arms and no-one knew
what was used in other parts of the country.

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

I wonder whether members of the group have any ideas as to whether close
similarities in armorial bearings borne by different people in the 12th and 13th
centuries, not otherwise known to be related, are to be taken as a clue to (or
perhaps even evidence of) their kinship?

An example of what I mean can be found in the close similarity between the
arms of Whittington (Gules a fess checky or and azure) and those of the folowing
individuals, which I have borrowed from Brian Timms' remarkable heraldic
website
http://www.briantimms.com/era/armsrollsblazons.htm

All the following devices appear following "checky or and azure":-
a fess gules Robert de Clifford
a fess gules Raoul de Beaugency
a fess gules Roger de Clifford
a fess gules fretty argent Robert de Cheney
on a bend gules three lions passant argent John de Clifford
on a fess gules a dexter lion rampant argent Simon de Beaugency
on a fess gules three buckles argent Hugh Deincourt
on a fess gules three cinquefoils argent Roger de Clifford
on a fess gules three lions rampant argent Geoffrey de Pitchford
on a fess gules three mullets argent Walter de Capel

Meanwhile, again from Brian Timms, we have checky or and azure (or azure and
or) with no other device or charge, borne by William and John Warenne Earls of
Surrey, Baudouin d'Usse and Mahier de Lannoy. And some Cliffords are shown
with bends, rather than fesses, gules.

It will be noticed that the Whittington arms are the precise inverse of those
of Clifford- the ones who had a fess rather than a bend.

Looking no further than the names mentioned above, is is clear that small
differences in blazonry occurred among people who were obviously closely related-
Cliffords, Beaugencys. And the Clifford/Deincourt relationship has often been
mentioned in the group. I am tempted therefore, at the risk of perpetrating
an horrendous non sequitur, to suggest that closely similar arms may indeed be
a mark of kinship. Do other contributors know better?

In the case of the Whittingtons, I do not know their provenance. They first
appear, so far as I know, when a William married the d'Aguillon heiress of
Upton Solers in Warwickshire in the mid 1200s. (They retained the manor for
another three centures in a direct male line of descent). But the Fitzwarrens were
at that time the lords of Whittington in Shropshire. I wonder whether the fess
checky was a badge of their relationship? Or perhaps of feudal dependance? It
is probable that the Pitchfords, a very ancient Shropshire family, were
dependants of the Fitzwarrens, though quite possibly not related to them in blood
(for all I know)
All suggestions gratefully received, as ever
MM







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

Peter G R Howarth

Re: Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Peter G R Howarth » 25 okt 2005 19:06:02

There are several possible explanations for the similarity, or even
congruency, of two mediaeval coats of arms--

1 pure, unconnected coincidence; with a limited number of charges in
use, it is not surprising that there should be duplications.

2 local fashion; there were many Cheshire families who used garbs (or
sheaves) in imitation of the Earls of Chester; in the Low Countries
many had a single lion rampant (Flanders, Holland, Hainault, Limburg,
Brabant, Guelders, Juelich et al); and in the area close to
Constantinople many bore eagles in their arms.

3 family connection; this includes several instances where families
whose connection goes back to pre-heraldic times share the same or
very similar arms: the Vermandois group of chequy (or lozengy) arms,
the Mandeville group of quartered arms and the Clare group of
chevrons. One possible explanation, that can only remain a theory,
is that, since all three patterns are easily portrayed in textiles, a
common ancestor bore a banner of that pattern, so that when their
descendants started to bear arms they chose a pattern already
associated with the family.

In deciding which explanation might explain the similarity of arms,
start with the first one and only progress to the next one where you
have independent evidence that it is not just coincidence.

Peter G R Howarth

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote Mon 24/10/2005 20:22

I wonder whether members of the group have any ideas as to whether
close similarities in armorial bearings borne by different people in
the 12th and 13th centuries, not otherwise known to be related, are
to be taken as a clue to (or perhaps even evidence of) their
kinship?

An example of what I mean can be found in the close similarity
between the arms of Whittington (Gules a fess checky or and azure)
and those of the folowing individuals, which I have borrowed from
Brian Timms' remarkable heraldic website
http://www.briantimms.com/era/armsrollsblazons.htm

All the following devices appear following "checky or and azure":- a
fess gules Robert de Clifford a fess gules Raoul de Beaugency a
fess gules Roger de Clifford a fess gules fretty argent Robert de
Cheney on a bend gules three lions passant argent John de Clifford
on a fess gules a dexter lion rampant argent Simon de Beaugency on a
fess gules three buckles argent Hugh Deincourt on a fess gules three
cinquefoils argent Roger de Clifford on a fess gules three lions
rampant argent Geoffrey de Pitchford on a fess gules three mullets
argent Walter de Capel

Meanwhile, again from Brian Timms, we have checky or and azure (or
azure and or) with no other device or charge, borne by William and
John Warenne Earls of Surrey, Baudouin d'Usse and Mahier de Lannoy.
And some Cliffords are shown with bends, rather than fesses, gules.

It will be noticed that the Whittington arms are the precise inverse
of those of Clifford- the ones who had a fess rather than a bend.

Looking no further than the names mentioned above, is is clear that
small differences in blazonry occurred among people who were
obviously closely related- Cliffords, Beaugencys. And the
Clifford/Deincourt relationship has often been mentioned in the
group. I am tempted therefore, at the risk of perpetrating an
horrendous non sequitur, to suggest that closely similar arms may
indeed be a mark of kinship. Do other contributors know better?

In the case of the Whittingtons, I do not know their provenance. They
first appear, so far as I know, when a William married the d'Aguillon
heiress of Upton Solers in Warwickshire in the mid 1200s. (They
retained the manor for another three centures in a direct male line
of descent). But the Fitzwarrens were at that time the lords of
Whittington in Shropshire. I wonder whether the fess checky was a
badge of their relationship? Or perhaps of feudal dependance? It is
probable that the Pitchfords, a very ancient Shropshire family, were
dependants of the Fitzwarrens, though quite possibly not related to
them in blood (for all I know) All suggestions gratefully received,
as ever MM



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 24/10/2005

Gjest

Re: Heraldry and kinship

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 21:06:02

You may be right, but the chequers sign is of very ancient origin. It can be
found at Pompeii, but for what purpose, I know not. A chequers board was
used as an accounting devise, often found at Inns, and some pubs are called
"The Chequers", usually with a chequers board as a sign. The words "exchequer",
"cheque" etc. derive their origin from the chequered counting board. The
FitzWilliam family, who had licensed alehouses in the reign of Edward IV had
chequy arms.

My local is "The Chequers", but just outside Surrey

Adrian



In a message dated 25/10/2005 12:23:36 GMT Standard Time,
bobnew@ntlworld.com writes:


The arms chequy, or and azure, were adopted by the House of Warenne, earls
of Surrey, when the II earl married the heiress Isabel de Vermandois. These
arms were supposedly those of the House of Vermandois whose prestigous
descent was in direct male line from Charlemagne. If those counts of
Vermandois bore these arms then this was a very early use of heraldry. The
last, Heribert IV, died in 1080.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Millerfairfield@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: Heraldry and kinship

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»