Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Kelly Leighton
Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
Researchers,
I have been researching the arms found in The Tickencote picture/painting representation in John M. Wingfield's Some Records of the Wingfield Family. I have a few questions that perhaps someone better educated in heraldry could answer. There are three generations of Wingfield arms represented in this picture, and wives' arms, as well.
A) Robert Wingfield who married Elizabeth Gousell had the traditional Wingfield arms ( arg on a bend gules, cotised sable three pairs of wings conjoined of the field) on the left half of his shield, and the Gousell arms ( Barry (6) or and gules, a canton ermine) on the right half. Nothing "abnormal" about this.
B) His son John who married Elizabeth Fitzlewis (dau of John Fitzlewis says the author) is the central figure and has changed things up a bit. His shield has eight depictions on it!
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 top right is Wingfield arms
2 De Boville arms (quarterly or and sable)
3 Gousell arms
4 then something strange (to me). The fourth (and rightmost on the top) is chequy or and azure.
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 chequy or and azure
8 Gousell to finish this up
Chequy or and azure appears to be the arms of the Dukes of Howard. His mother was married to one of the dukes prior to her marriage with his father.
Would a man bring a great great grandparent's arms into his shield with no evidence of his father using those arms? Would a man bring in a mother's previous marriage into his arms so prominently, again without his father having done so?
This John's wife's arms are also displayed in this Tickencote picture. The left half of the shield represent the arms of John Lewis (so named by source 4 below, which Douglas Richardson also confirms). "Sable, a chevron between three trefoils argent." The right side is quartered. The top: Montagu (argent three loznges conjoined in fess gules), Mortimer (or an eagle displayed vert), and the bottom: Mortimer, Montagu. So, her shield seems understandable.
But none of these symbols are on her husband's shield.
I believe the Tickencote picture is representing John and Elizabeth (and most of their children), and John's father Robert (previously mentioned above) at John and Elizabeth's wedding, though the picture was obviously created many years later. Would John's arms have changed after the marriage to include her arms? If so, why weren't his own arms more closely related to his fathers?
C) Next in the picture is John and Elizabeth's son John who married Anne Tuchet. His arms (she is not shown, merely referred to in text below this John) also seem slightly confusing. They are also divided into eight parts.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 Wingfield
2 Boville
3 Audley (Gules a fret or)
4 argent a chevron gules (It is possible there is more to this, although this looks like all of it)
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 argent a chevron gules
8 Audley
The left side is exactly as his father John's are. The right side appears to be a quartering of his wife's Audley ams with the chevron. The picture seems to be merely that of a red chevron, but it is possible that there is something small that I am missing. The only Red chevron on a white background that I've found refers to the Teys family, which this John's wife's grandmother Margaret Knyvet married into (first) before marrying Thomas Echingham. Robert De Teye (d 1415) was Margaret's first husband, it appears.
Would a man put his wife's grandmother's first husband on his arms and leave off any reference to his own mother's distinctive lineage?
Also, since neither Elizabeth Fitzlewis nor Anne Tuchet appeared to have had full brothers, shouldn't there be a "escutcheon of pretense" in younger John's shield with his wife's arms? If John sr had included his wife's arms, would his ife's have been in one of these "escutcheon of pretense" in his?
This has taken some time to identify and articulate, I hope to see some productive comments.
Thanks,
Kelly in RI
Sources:
1) Some Records of the Wingfield Family.
Wingfield, John M.
London: Murray, 1925 republished by Wingfield Family Society in 1991
ISBN 0-937543-03-9
2) The complete book of heraldry : an international history of heraldry and its contemporary uses
Slater, Stephen
London: Anness Publishing Ltd. (2002)
3) An alphabetical dictionary of coats of arms belonging to families in Great Britain and Ireland; forming an extensive ordinary of British armorials.
Papworth, John W and Alfred William Whitehead Morant
Publisher: Baltimore, Genealogical Pub. Co., 1965.
4) Some Feudal Coats of Arms From the Heraldic Rolls 1298-1418.
Foster, Joseph.
London: James Parkers & Co., 1902.
5) An heraldic alphabet
Brooke-Little, J P
Arco Publishing Co. c John Brooke-Little 1973
6) Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Medieval and Colonial Families
Richardson, Douglas
Kimball G. Everingham, editor published (May 2004)by Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland
I have been researching the arms found in The Tickencote picture/painting representation in John M. Wingfield's Some Records of the Wingfield Family. I have a few questions that perhaps someone better educated in heraldry could answer. There are three generations of Wingfield arms represented in this picture, and wives' arms, as well.
A) Robert Wingfield who married Elizabeth Gousell had the traditional Wingfield arms ( arg on a bend gules, cotised sable three pairs of wings conjoined of the field) on the left half of his shield, and the Gousell arms ( Barry (6) or and gules, a canton ermine) on the right half. Nothing "abnormal" about this.
B) His son John who married Elizabeth Fitzlewis (dau of John Fitzlewis says the author) is the central figure and has changed things up a bit. His shield has eight depictions on it!
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 top right is Wingfield arms
2 De Boville arms (quarterly or and sable)
3 Gousell arms
4 then something strange (to me). The fourth (and rightmost on the top) is chequy or and azure.
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 chequy or and azure
8 Gousell to finish this up
Chequy or and azure appears to be the arms of the Dukes of Howard. His mother was married to one of the dukes prior to her marriage with his father.
Would a man bring a great great grandparent's arms into his shield with no evidence of his father using those arms? Would a man bring in a mother's previous marriage into his arms so prominently, again without his father having done so?
This John's wife's arms are also displayed in this Tickencote picture. The left half of the shield represent the arms of John Lewis (so named by source 4 below, which Douglas Richardson also confirms). "Sable, a chevron between three trefoils argent." The right side is quartered. The top: Montagu (argent three loznges conjoined in fess gules), Mortimer (or an eagle displayed vert), and the bottom: Mortimer, Montagu. So, her shield seems understandable.
But none of these symbols are on her husband's shield.
I believe the Tickencote picture is representing John and Elizabeth (and most of their children), and John's father Robert (previously mentioned above) at John and Elizabeth's wedding, though the picture was obviously created many years later. Would John's arms have changed after the marriage to include her arms? If so, why weren't his own arms more closely related to his fathers?
C) Next in the picture is John and Elizabeth's son John who married Anne Tuchet. His arms (she is not shown, merely referred to in text below this John) also seem slightly confusing. They are also divided into eight parts.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 Wingfield
2 Boville
3 Audley (Gules a fret or)
4 argent a chevron gules (It is possible there is more to this, although this looks like all of it)
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 argent a chevron gules
8 Audley
The left side is exactly as his father John's are. The right side appears to be a quartering of his wife's Audley ams with the chevron. The picture seems to be merely that of a red chevron, but it is possible that there is something small that I am missing. The only Red chevron on a white background that I've found refers to the Teys family, which this John's wife's grandmother Margaret Knyvet married into (first) before marrying Thomas Echingham. Robert De Teye (d 1415) was Margaret's first husband, it appears.
Would a man put his wife's grandmother's first husband on his arms and leave off any reference to his own mother's distinctive lineage?
Also, since neither Elizabeth Fitzlewis nor Anne Tuchet appeared to have had full brothers, shouldn't there be a "escutcheon of pretense" in younger John's shield with his wife's arms? If John sr had included his wife's arms, would his ife's have been in one of these "escutcheon of pretense" in his?
This has taken some time to identify and articulate, I hope to see some productive comments.
Thanks,
Kelly in RI
Sources:
1) Some Records of the Wingfield Family.
Wingfield, John M.
London: Murray, 1925 republished by Wingfield Family Society in 1991
ISBN 0-937543-03-9
2) The complete book of heraldry : an international history of heraldry and its contemporary uses
Slater, Stephen
London: Anness Publishing Ltd. (2002)
3) An alphabetical dictionary of coats of arms belonging to families in Great Britain and Ireland; forming an extensive ordinary of British armorials.
Papworth, John W and Alfred William Whitehead Morant
Publisher: Baltimore, Genealogical Pub. Co., 1965.
4) Some Feudal Coats of Arms From the Heraldic Rolls 1298-1418.
Foster, Joseph.
London: James Parkers & Co., 1902.
5) An heraldic alphabet
Brooke-Little, J P
Arco Publishing Co. c John Brooke-Little 1973
6) Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Medieval and Colonial Families
Richardson, Douglas
Kimball G. Everingham, editor published (May 2004)by Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <mailman.3352.1171478593.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net> wrote:
It would be nice to see these illustrated. Is it a re-drawing of some
tomb arms, or glass? That is, are the arms contemporary or notional?
At any rate, it looks as if you are dealing with impaled arms, and what
you see in both cases are the arms of a husband in the dexter (left)
half impaling those of the spouse on the right. So in both examples,
the arms you number 1, 2, 5, and 6 are the dexter arms of Wingfield
while 3, 4, 7, and 8 are the wife's. I'm not sure why Gousell is both
quartered and impaled, then, in (B), though. I'd like to see the images
and understand the provenance of what's being depicted.
Does this help? I'm sure the chequy coat is readily identifiable, as
well as the 2d quartering of the Tuchet half, but I'm in a hurry.
Nat Taylor (also in RI)
http://www.nltaylor.net
"Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net> wrote:
Researchers,
I have been researching the arms found in The Tickencote picture/painting
representation in John M. Wingfield's Some Records of the Wingfield Family. I
have a few questions that perhaps someone better educated in heraldry could
answer. There are three generations of Wingfield arms represented in this
picture, and wives' arms, as well.
A) Robert Wingfield who married Elizabeth Gousell had the traditional
Wingfield arms ( arg on a bend gules, cotised sable three pairs of wings
conjoined of the field) on the left half of his shield, and the Gousell arms
( Barry (6) or and gules, a canton ermine) on the right half. Nothing
"abnormal" about this.
B) His son John who married Elizabeth Fitzlewis (dau of John Fitzlewis says
the author) is the central figure and has changed things up a bit. His shield
has eight depictions on it!
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 top right is Wingfield arms
2 De Boville arms (quarterly or and sable)
3 Gousell arms
4 then something strange (to me). The fourth (and rightmost on the top) is
chequy or and azure.
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and
azure
6 Wingfield
7 chequy or and azure
8 Gousell to finish this up
Chequy or and azure appears to be the arms of the Dukes of Howard. His mother
was married to one of the dukes prior to her marriage with his father.
Would a man bring a great great grandparent's arms into his shield with no
evidence of his father using those arms? Would a man bring in a mother's
previous marriage into his arms so prominently, again without his father
having done so?
This John's wife's arms are also displayed in this Tickencote picture. The
left half of the shield represent the arms of John Lewis (so named by source
4 below, which Douglas Richardson also confirms). "Sable, a chevron between
three trefoils argent." The right side is quartered. The top: Montagu (argent
three loznges conjoined in fess gules), Mortimer (or an eagle displayed
vert), and the bottom: Mortimer, Montagu. So, her shield seems
understandable.
But none of these symbols are on her husband's shield.
I believe the Tickencote picture is representing John and Elizabeth (and most
of their children), and John's father Robert (previously mentioned above) at
John and Elizabeth's wedding, though the picture was obviously created many
years later. Would John's arms have changed after the marriage to include her
arms? If so, why weren't his own arms more closely related to his fathers?
C) Next in the picture is John and Elizabeth's son John who married Anne
Tuchet. His arms (she is not shown, merely referred to in text below this
John) also seem slightly confusing. They are also divided into eight parts.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 Wingfield
2 Boville
3 Audley (Gules a fret or)
4 argent a chevron gules (It is possible there is more to this, although this
looks like all of it)
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy or and
azure
6 Wingfield
7 argent a chevron gules
8 Audley
The left side is exactly as his father John's are. The right side appears to
be a quartering of his wife's Audley ams with the chevron. The picture seems
to be merely that of a red chevron, but it is possible that there is
something small that I am missing. The only Red chevron on a white background
that I've found refers to the Teys family, which this John's wife's
grandmother Margaret Knyvet married into (first) before marrying Thomas
Echingham. Robert De Teye (d 1415) was Margaret's first husband, it appears.
Would a man put his wife's grandmother's first husband on his arms and leave
off any reference to his own mother's distinctive lineage?
Also, since neither Elizabeth Fitzlewis nor Anne Tuchet appeared to have had
full brothers, shouldn't there be a "escutcheon of pretense" in younger
John's shield with his wife's arms? If John sr had included his wife's arms,
would his ife's have been in one of these "escutcheon of pretense" in his?
This has taken some time to identify and articulate, I hope to see some
productive comments.
Thanks,
Kelly in RI
It would be nice to see these illustrated. Is it a re-drawing of some
tomb arms, or glass? That is, are the arms contemporary or notional?
At any rate, it looks as if you are dealing with impaled arms, and what
you see in both cases are the arms of a husband in the dexter (left)
half impaling those of the spouse on the right. So in both examples,
the arms you number 1, 2, 5, and 6 are the dexter arms of Wingfield
while 3, 4, 7, and 8 are the wife's. I'm not sure why Gousell is both
quartered and impaled, then, in (B), though. I'd like to see the images
and understand the provenance of what's being depicted.
Does this help? I'm sure the chequy coat is readily identifiable, as
well as the 2d quartering of the Tuchet half, but I'm in a hurry.
Nat Taylor (also in RI)
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article
<nathanieltaylor-4C4E67.14161114022007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
I wrote:
I think I was in too much of a hurry over this, and now I'm confused.
If Goushell is the mother of (B) but not the wife of (B) then this isn't
a big impaling unless there's a Goushill ancestor but the pattern of the
arms still suggests two arms quarterly of four, impaled. And in (C) the
Audley arms 3-4, 7-8 look like an impaled quartering, and presumably
represent the 'Tuchet' wife. I guess I'd just like to see the actual
image. I see this book is not on ancestry.com. Are the images of these
arms available anywhere?
[John M. Wingfield, _Some Records of the Wingfield Family_ (London:
Murray, 1925; repr. Wingfield Family Society, 1991).]
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<nathanieltaylor-4C4E67.14161114022007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
I wrote:
At any rate, it looks as if you are dealing with impaled arms, and what
you see in both cases are the arms of a husband in the dexter (left)
half impaling those of the spouse on the right. So in both examples,
the arms you number 1, 2, 5, and 6 are the dexter arms of Wingfield
while 3, 4, 7, and 8 are the wife's. I'm not sure why Gousell is both
quartered and impaled, then, in (B), though. I'd like to see the images
and understand the provenance of what's being depicted.
Does this help? I'm sure the chequy coat is readily identifiable, as
well as the 2d quartering of the Tuchet half, but I'm in a hurry.
I think I was in too much of a hurry over this, and now I'm confused.
If Goushell is the mother of (B) but not the wife of (B) then this isn't
a big impaling unless there's a Goushill ancestor but the pattern of the
arms still suggests two arms quarterly of four, impaled. And in (C) the
Audley arms 3-4, 7-8 look like an impaled quartering, and presumably
represent the 'Tuchet' wife. I guess I'd just like to see the actual
image. I see this book is not on ancestry.com. Are the images of these
arms available anywhere?
[John M. Wingfield, _Some Records of the Wingfield Family_ (London:
Murray, 1925; repr. Wingfield Family Society, 1991).]
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In message of 14 Feb, "Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net> wrote:
There is also the newsgroup rec.heraldry where one or two very learned
heraldists reside.
Is this a picture of the chap or is it a picture of some arms? If it is
the latter and has lots of different arms on it, it is generally known
as an 'achievement of arms'. I will assume in what follows that it is
an achievement.
This is indeed as Nat Taylor says, an impaled set of arms between
husband and wife.
This could be anything and we need to see an illustration to say
anything meaningful.
In the meantime, let's go over the components of an achievement of arms.
Always, top left should be the personal arms of the person whose
achievement it is.
The rest of the arms are known as quarterings, and there can be more
than four of these in English heraldry (though Scots heraldry does limit
things in a way to four). Each quartering should represent an heiress
who has been married by a male ancestor of the chap in No 1. These
quarterings are cumulative; if a chap marries an heiress, this brings
with her the quarterings that her father has, etc.
This is where the fun starts. Liz Goushill was a co-heir and her mother
was also a co-heir and her grandfather was an earl of Arundel and in all
likelihood the FitzAlan's had married into a ton of heiresses over the
centuries. The first task is to find which heiresses they had picked up
and find further what their arms were. Then you can see if you can make
any sense of the achievement that you have.
And in trying to make sense, be warned that sometimes these achievements
were wrong: people claimed arms to which they were not entitled.
Finally John Wingfield himself married an heiress and by the time of his
life, the practice had developed of putting the arms of heiress wives in
a 'shield of pretence' which is placed in the middle of the achievement.
See above.
Sounds like the picture of the achievement(s) has been printed the wrong
way round: it should be the man on the left and the woman on the right.
No. His personal arms do not normally change, though they can indeed be
changed.
See above.
Anne was not an heiress. But her father would certainly have had arms
and these could have been displayed in an impalement.
See above. Do the genealogy first and then see if any of these match up
with heiresses.
If he wanted to. There is no requirement to put in anyone's arms in an
achievement. As long as you have your own in quarter 1, you can put who
you like of the inherited arms in the rest; further in those days if a
person inherited a title from his wife (de jure uxor), they frequently
put the wife's family arms first. But these days there is a requirement
for the order in which they are marshalled but it's too long to go
through here.
Yes.
That is correct, though there is some confusion around here between
impalement of husband and wife's arms and the construction of an
achievement. Impalements do not normally get shields of pretence.
Produce the picture!
Papworth followed Burke and, like Burke, is less than reliable on
medieval heraldry. The best compendium on medieval heraldry is the
series called "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary" of which
vols 1 and 2 have been published and vols 3 and 4 should come out in a
year or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Researchers,
I have been researching the arms found in The Tickencote
picture/painting representation in John M. Wingfield's Some Records of
the Wingfield Family. I have a few questions that perhaps someone
better educated in heraldry could answer.
There is also the newsgroup rec.heraldry where one or two very learned
heraldists reside.
There are three generations of Wingfield arms represented in this
picture, and wives' arms, as well.
Is this a picture of the chap or is it a picture of some arms? If it is
the latter and has lots of different arms on it, it is generally known
as an 'achievement of arms'. I will assume in what follows that it is
an achievement.
A) Robert Wingfield who married Elizabeth Gousell had the traditional
Wingfield arms ( arg on a bend gules, cotised sable three pairs of
wings conjoined of the field) on the left half of his shield, and the
Gousell arms ( Barry (6) or and gules, a canton ermine) on the right
half. Nothing "abnormal" about this.
This is indeed as Nat Taylor says, an impaled set of arms between
husband and wife.
B) His son John who married Elizabeth Fitzlewis (dau of John Fitzlewis
says the author) is the central figure and has changed things up a
bit. His shield has eight depictions on it!
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 top right is Wingfield arms
2 De Boville arms (quarterly or and sable)
3 Gousell arms
4 then something strange (to me). The fourth (and rightmost on the
top) is chequy or and azure.
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy
or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 chequy or and azure
8 Gousell to finish this up
This could be anything and we need to see an illustration to say
anything meaningful.
In the meantime, let's go over the components of an achievement of arms.
Always, top left should be the personal arms of the person whose
achievement it is.
The rest of the arms are known as quarterings, and there can be more
than four of these in English heraldry (though Scots heraldry does limit
things in a way to four). Each quartering should represent an heiress
who has been married by a male ancestor of the chap in No 1. These
quarterings are cumulative; if a chap marries an heiress, this brings
with her the quarterings that her father has, etc.
Chequy or and azure appears to be the arms of the Dukes of Howard. His
mother was married to one of the dukes prior to her marriage with his
father.
This is where the fun starts. Liz Goushill was a co-heir and her mother
was also a co-heir and her grandfather was an earl of Arundel and in all
likelihood the FitzAlan's had married into a ton of heiresses over the
centuries. The first task is to find which heiresses they had picked up
and find further what their arms were. Then you can see if you can make
any sense of the achievement that you have.
And in trying to make sense, be warned that sometimes these achievements
were wrong: people claimed arms to which they were not entitled.
Finally John Wingfield himself married an heiress and by the time of his
life, the practice had developed of putting the arms of heiress wives in
a 'shield of pretence' which is placed in the middle of the achievement.
Would a man bring a great great grandparent's arms into his shield
with no evidence of his father using those arms? Would a man bring in
a mother's previous marriage into his arms so prominently, again
without his father having done so?
See above.
This John's wife's arms are also displayed in this Tickencote picture.
The left half of the shield represent the arms of John Lewis (so named
by source 4 below, which Douglas Richardson also confirms). "Sable, a
chevron between three trefoils argent." The right side is quartered.
The top: Montagu (argent three loznges conjoined in fess gules),
Mortimer (or an eagle displayed vert), and the bottom: Mortimer,
Montagu. So, her shield seems understandable.
Sounds like the picture of the achievement(s) has been printed the wrong
way round: it should be the man on the left and the woman on the right.
But none of these symbols are on her husband's shield.
I believe the Tickencote picture is representing John and Elizabeth
(and most of their children), and John's father Robert (previously
mentioned above) at John and Elizabeth's wedding, though the picture
was obviously created many years later. Would John's arms have changed
after the marriage to include her arms?
No. His personal arms do not normally change, though they can indeed be
changed.
If so, why weren't his own arms more closely related to his fathers?
See above.
C) Next in the picture is John and Elizabeth's son John who married
Anne Tuchet. His arms (she is not shown, merely referred to in text
below this John)
Anne was not an heiress. But her father would certainly have had arms
and these could have been displayed in an impalement.
also seem slightly confusing. They are also divided into eight parts.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1 Wingfield
2 Boville
3 Audley (Gules a fret or)
4 argent a chevron gules (It is possible there is more to this,
although this looks like all of it)
5 Bottom left of the shield is a quartering of Gousell and this chequy
or and azure
6 Wingfield
7 argent a chevron gules
8 Audley
See above. Do the genealogy first and then see if any of these match up
with heiresses.
The left side is exactly as his father John's are. The right side
appears to be a quartering of his wife's Audley ams with the chevron.
The picture seems to be merely that of a red chevron, but it is
possible that there is something small that I am missing. The only Red
chevron on a white background that I've found refers to the Teys
family, which this John's wife's grandmother Margaret Knyvet married
into (first) before marrying Thomas Echingham. Robert De Teye (d 1415)
was Margaret's first husband, it appears.
Would a man put his wife's grandmother's first husband on his arms and
leave off any reference to his own mother's distinctive lineage?
If he wanted to. There is no requirement to put in anyone's arms in an
achievement. As long as you have your own in quarter 1, you can put who
you like of the inherited arms in the rest; further in those days if a
person inherited a title from his wife (de jure uxor), they frequently
put the wife's family arms first. But these days there is a requirement
for the order in which they are marshalled but it's too long to go
through here.
Also, since neither Elizabeth Fitzlewis nor Anne Tuchet appeared to
have had full brothers, shouldn't there be a "escutcheon of pretense"
in younger John's shield with his wife's arms?
Yes.
If John sr had included his wife's arms, would his ife's have been in
one of these "escutcheon of pretense" in his?
That is correct, though there is some confusion around here between
impalement of husband and wife's arms and the construction of an
achievement. Impalements do not normally get shields of pretence.
This has taken some time to identify and articulate, I hope to see
some productive comments.
Produce the picture!
Thanks,
Kelly in RI
Sources:
1) Some Records of the Wingfield Family.
Wingfield, John M.
London: Murray, 1925 republished by Wingfield Family Society in 1991
ISBN 0-937543-03-9
2) The complete book of heraldry : an international history of
heraldry and its contemporary uses
Slater, Stephen
London: Anness Publishing Ltd. (2002)
3) An alphabetical dictionary of coats of arms belonging to families
in Great Britain and Ireland; forming an extensive ordinary of British
armorials.
Papworth, John W and Alfred William Whitehead Morant
Publisher: Baltimore, Genealogical Pub. Co., 1965.
Papworth followed Burke and, like Burke, is less than reliable on
medieval heraldry. The best compendium on medieval heraldry is the
series called "Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary" of which
vols 1 and 2 have been published and vols 3 and 4 should come out in a
year or two.
4) Some Feudal Coats of Arms From the Heraldic Rolls 1298-1418.
Foster, Joseph.
London: James Parkers & Co., 1902.
5) An heraldic alphabet
Brooke-Little, J P
Arco Publishing Co. c John Brooke-Little 1973
6) Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Medieval and Colonial Families
Richardson, Douglas
Kimball G. Everingham, editor published (May 2004) by Genealogical
Publishing Company, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In message of 14 Feb, "Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net> wrote:
I have put four pictures from Kelly on my web-site as follows:
1. A low-definition one of the picture itself:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... pic_sm.pdf
2. A key to the people portrayed on the picture:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... te_key.pdf
3. Some interpretations from Kelly of arms on the picture:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... encote.pdf
These three are on Plusnet's (my ISP) main server and should come
through to you fairly quickly.
However the high definition scan of the picture takes up 16 Mbytes and
is too big to go on the space PlusNet gives me. So I have put it on the
little internet server machine beside me which has loads of space. It is
at:
http://southfarm.plus.com/scans/tickencote_picture.pdf
Be patient for the download. And if more than two of you try at once,
things may get fraught!
All the pictures are much more legible if you print them out.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Researchers,
I have been researching the arms found in The Tickencote
picture/painting representation in John M. Wingfield's Some Records of
the Wingfield Family. I have a few questions that perhaps someone
better educated in heraldry could answer. There are three generations
of Wingfield arms represented in this picture, and wives' arms, as
well.
I have put four pictures from Kelly on my web-site as follows:
1. A low-definition one of the picture itself:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... pic_sm.pdf
2. A key to the people portrayed on the picture:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... te_key.pdf
3. Some interpretations from Kelly of arms on the picture:
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Manuscrip ... encote.pdf
These three are on Plusnet's (my ISP) main server and should come
through to you fairly quickly.
However the high definition scan of the picture takes up 16 Mbytes and
is too big to go on the space PlusNet gives me. So I have put it on the
little internet server machine beside me which has loads of space. It is
at:
http://southfarm.plus.com/scans/tickencote_picture.pdf
Be patient for the download. And if more than two of you try at once,
things may get fraught!
All the pictures are much more legible if you print them out.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <042339b54e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
I misspoke on this in my long post: Elizabeth Goushill was heiress of
her father but not her mother, so the Wingfields couldn't quarter
anything from the Arundel grandmother (and they rightly did not, here).
The chequy coat must come from one of the earlier, unidentified Goushill
marriages (those folks were obscure).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
This is where the fun starts. Liz Goushill was a co-heir and her mother
was also a co-heir and her grandfather was an earl of Arundel and in all
likelihood the FitzAlan's had married into a ton of heiresses over the
centuries. The first task is to find which heiresses they had picked up
and find further what their arms were. Then you can see if you can make
any sense of the achievement that you have.
I misspoke on this in my long post: Elizabeth Goushill was heiress of
her father but not her mother, so the Wingfields couldn't quarter
anything from the Arundel grandmother (and they rightly did not, here).
The chequy coat must come from one of the earlier, unidentified Goushill
marriages (those folks were obscure).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
taf
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
On Feb 14, 7:02 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there would
be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some indiction
of heirship to a younger branch that was originally present but no
longer visible. Second, if this was based on glass or paint, it might
have discolored with age, such that or and Az was actually originally
something else. The final possibility that comes to mind would also
account for the unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was
not uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always done
in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one other case
where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from unrelated families.
Perhaps, then, not all of these panels belong there (this would
particularly explain the quartered coat within the quarterly coat, if
this panel was originally a stand-alone arms that got moved into the
big arms to replace a damaged panel or the like.
taf
wrote:
In article <042339b54e....@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
This is where the fun starts. Liz Goushill was a co-heir and her mother
was also a co-heir and her grandfather was an earl of Arundel and in all
likelihood the FitzAlan's had married into a ton of heiresses over the
centuries. The first task is to find which heiresses they had picked up
and find further what their arms were. Then you can see if you can make
any sense of the achievement that you have.
I misspoke on this in my long post: Elizabeth Goushill was heiress of
her father but not her mother, so the Wingfields couldn't quarter
anything from the Arundel grandmother (and they rightly did not, here).
The chequy coat must come from one of the earlier, unidentified Goushill
marriages (those folks were obscure).
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there would
be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some indiction
of heirship to a younger branch that was originally present but no
longer visible. Second, if this was based on glass or paint, it might
have discolored with age, such that or and Az was actually originally
something else. The final possibility that comes to mind would also
account for the unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was
not uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always done
in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one other case
where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from unrelated families.
Perhaps, then, not all of these panels belong there (this would
particularly explain the quartered coat within the quarterly coat, if
this panel was originally a stand-alone arms that got moved into the
big arms to replace a damaged panel or the like.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <1171549510.576589.85850@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses immediately
above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's certainly possible
that one of them was thought to have brought in a chequy coat--either an
obscure Warenne or some heraldic look-alike.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there would
be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some indiction
of heirship to a younger branch that was originally present but no
longer visible. Second, if this was based on glass or paint, it might
have discolored with age, such that or and Az was actually originally
something else. The final possibility that comes to mind would also
account for the unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was
not uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always done
in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one other case
where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from unrelated families.
Perhaps, then, not all of these panels belong there (this would
particularly explain the quartered coat within the quarterly coat, if
this panel was originally a stand-alone arms that got moved into the
big arms to replace a damaged panel or the like.
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses immediately
above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's certainly possible
that one of them was thought to have brought in a chequy coat--either an
obscure Warenne or some heraldic look-alike.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In message of 15 Feb, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
Here's a Warenne link:
John de Warenne, earl of Surrey c. 1231-1304
|
William de Warenne, only s., dvp, 1256-1286
|
|
Alice de Warenne, d. 1330-8, heir to brother John
= Edmund, earl of Arundel, 1285-1326
|
__|
|
Richard, earl of Arundel (c.1313-1376)
|
Elizabeth FitsAlan, c. 1371-1425, co-heir to bro Thomas
|
Elizabeth Goushill, not heir to her mother, only to her father
|
John Wingfield
Ockham's razor would say that they were probably thinking of this line
when pirating the Warenne coat. It was not unknown in medieval times
for families to use a coat to which they were not entitled, viz the
Nevilles were past masters at this, having borrowed the following:
Brittany
Harcourt
FitzRoger aka Clavering
and in the 1920s the College of Arms was still documenting these as
genuine inherited arms. It might even be said that they quartered
important ancestors and were not even fully aware of the modern rule
that this could only be done for ancestors of heiresses.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In article <1171549510.576589.85850@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there would
be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some indiction
of heirship to a younger branch that was originally present but no
longer visible. Second, if this was based on glass or paint, it might
have discolored with age, such that or and Az was actually originally
something else. The final possibility that comes to mind would also
account for the unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was
not uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always done
in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one other case
where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from unrelated families.
Perhaps, then, not all of these panels belong there (this would
particularly explain the quartered coat within the quarterly coat, if
this panel was originally a stand-alone arms that got moved into the
big arms to replace a damaged panel or the like.
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses immediately
above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's certainly possible
that one of them was thought to have brought in a chequy coat--either an
obscure Warenne or some heraldic look-alike.
Here's a Warenne link:
John de Warenne, earl of Surrey c. 1231-1304
|
William de Warenne, only s., dvp, 1256-1286
|
|
Alice de Warenne, d. 1330-8, heir to brother John
= Edmund, earl of Arundel, 1285-1326
|
__|
|
Richard, earl of Arundel (c.1313-1376)
|
Elizabeth FitsAlan, c. 1371-1425, co-heir to bro Thomas
|
Elizabeth Goushill, not heir to her mother, only to her father
|
John Wingfield
Ockham's razor would say that they were probably thinking of this line
when pirating the Warenne coat. It was not unknown in medieval times
for families to use a coat to which they were not entitled, viz the
Nevilles were past masters at this, having borrowed the following:
Brittany
Harcourt
FitzRoger aka Clavering
and in the 1920s the College of Arms was still documenting these as
genuine inherited arms. It might even be said that they quartered
important ancestors and were not even fully aware of the modern rule
that this could only be done for ancestors of heiresses.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <edc0a0b54e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
Perhaps: this is a prominent heiress line. But why quarter it without
Arundel? Perhaps there was a piece of property which descended from
Alice de Warenne to the Wingfield marriage.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 15 Feb, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <1171549510.576589.85850@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there would
be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some indiction
of heirship to a younger branch that was originally present but no
longer visible. Second, if this was based on glass or paint, it might
have discolored with age, such that or and Az was actually originally
something else. The final possibility that comes to mind would also
account for the unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was
not uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always done
in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one other case
where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from unrelated families.
Perhaps, then, not all of these panels belong there (this would
particularly explain the quartered coat within the quarterly coat, if
this panel was originally a stand-alone arms that got moved into the
big arms to replace a damaged panel or the like.
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses immediately
above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's certainly possible
that one of them was thought to have brought in a chequy coat--either an
obscure Warenne or some heraldic look-alike.
Here's a Warenne link:
John de Warenne, earl of Surrey c. 1231-1304
|
William de Warenne, only s., dvp, 1256-1286
|
|
Alice de Warenne, d. 1330-8, heir to brother John
= Edmund, earl of Arundel, 1285-1326
|
__|
|
Richard, earl of Arundel (c.1313-1376)
|
Elizabeth FitsAlan, c. 1371-1425, co-heir to bro Thomas
|
Elizabeth Goushill, not heir to her mother, only to her father
|
John Wingfield
Ockham's razor would say that they were probably thinking of this line
when pirating the Warenne coat.
Perhaps: this is a prominent heiress line. But why quarter it without
Arundel? Perhaps there was a piece of property which descended from
Alice de Warenne to the Wingfield marriage.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In message of 15 Feb, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yes that would explain two of the Neville non-heiress quarterings,
Harcourt and FitzRobert aka Clavering. It also explains some of the
arms of Garter knights in St George's Chapel Windsor (and in W H St John
Hope's book Plantagenet Stall Plates pub 1901) where the chap had a
title by right of his wife; he then put the arms of his wife's family in
the first quarter. Richard Nevill, earl of Salisbury did this, as did
William Nevill, lord Fauconberg, as did Thomas Stanley of Lathom, lord
Stanley, whose wife was Joan Goushill, who put Lathom first, as did John
Nevill lord Montagu who put Montagu first and as did Walter Blount lord
Mountjoy who put Ayala first.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In article <edc0a0b54e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 15 Feb, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <1171549510.576589.85850@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
The chequy coat, or and az, is that of Warenne, of which there
would be no heiress marrying into the family. There are several
possibilities. First, it may have lost a difference - some
indiction of heirship to a younger branch that was originally
present but no longer visible. Second, if this was based on
glass or paint, it might have discolored with age, such that or
and Az was actually originally something else. The final
possibility that comes to mind would also account for the
unusual nature of the arms - if it was glass, it was not
uncommon to rebuild a window when the lead got weak and the
glasses started to fall out. Unfortunately, this was not always
done in a historically accurate way - I know of at least one
other case where a rebuilt arms has intruding panels from
unrelated families. Perhaps, then, not all of these panels
belong there (this would particularly explain the quartered coat
within the quarterly coat, if this panel was originally a
stand-alone arms that got moved into the big arms to replace a
damaged panel or the like.
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas
(or perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses
immediately above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's
certainly possible that one of them was thought to have brought in
a chequy coat--either an obscure Warenne or some heraldic
look-alike.
Here's a Warenne link:
John de Warenne, earl of Surrey c. 1231-1304
|
William de Warenne, only s., dvp, 1256-1286
|
|
Alice de Warenne, d. 1330-8, heir to brother John
= Edmund, earl of Arundel, 1285-1326
|
__|
|
Richard, earl of Arundel (c.1313-1376)
|
Elizabeth FitsAlan, c. 1371-1425, co-heir to bro Thomas
|
Elizabeth Goushill, not heir to her mother, only to her father
|
John Wingfield
Ockham's razor would say that they were probably thinking of this line
when pirating the Warenne coat.
Perhaps: this is a prominent heiress line. But why quarter it without
Arundel? Perhaps there was a piece of property which descended from
Alice de Warenne to the Wingfield marriage.
Yes that would explain two of the Neville non-heiress quarterings,
Harcourt and FitzRobert aka Clavering. It also explains some of the
arms of Garter knights in St George's Chapel Windsor (and in W H St John
Hope's book Plantagenet Stall Plates pub 1901) where the chap had a
title by right of his wife; he then put the arms of his wife's family in
the first quarter. Richard Nevill, earl of Salisbury did this, as did
William Nevill, lord Fauconberg, as did Thomas Stanley of Lathom, lord
Stanley, whose wife was Joan Goushill, who put Lathom first, as did John
Nevill lord Montagu who put Montagu first and as did Walter Blount lord
Mountjoy who put Ayala first.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <4958b0b54e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
But I'm sure there were no Spanish lands inherited in the Mountjoy case,
at least. And this isn't a case of reordering coats before the agnate
one, but choosing which quarterings to marshall, especially including
one coat over another through which it was inherited.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
Ockham's razor would say that they were probably thinking of this line
when pirating the Warenne coat.
Perhaps: this is a prominent heiress line. But why quarter it without
Arundel? Perhaps there was a piece of property which descended from
Alice de Warenne to the Wingfield marriage.
Yes that would explain two of the Neville non-heiress quarterings,
Harcourt and FitzRobert aka Clavering. It also explains some of the
arms of Garter knights in St George's Chapel Windsor (and in W H St John
Hope's book Plantagenet Stall Plates pub 1901) where the chap had a
title by right of his wife; he then put the arms of his wife's family in
the first quarter. Richard Nevill, earl of Salisbury did this, as did
William Nevill, lord Fauconberg, as did Thomas Stanley of Lathom, lord
Stanley, whose wife was Joan Goushill, who put Lathom first, as did John
Nevill lord Montagu who put Montagu first and as did Walter Blount lord
Mountjoy who put Ayala first.
But I'm sure there were no Spanish lands inherited in the Mountjoy case,
at least. And this isn't a case of reordering coats before the agnate
one, but choosing which quarterings to marshall, especially including
one coat over another through which it was inherited.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
Snip <<I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).>>
Dear Nat
Is there a copy online of the Lewkenor embroidered arms?
Merilyn
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).>>
Dear Nat
Is there a copy online of the Lewkenor embroidered arms?
Merilyn
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
In article <mailman.3442.1171578427.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not to my knowledge. I have a pdf (from JSTOR) of an article on it from
an article, Edith A. Standen, "The Carpet of Arms," _The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin_, New Series, 20 (1962), 221-231. The item was
acquired by the Metropolitan Museum (New York) in 1958. The carpet (or
tapestry) is dated 1564.
If you're curious, I've put the (black & white) photo of the item from
this article on my site, at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/heraldry/LewknorCarpet.jpg
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
"Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
Is there a copy online of the Lewkenor embroidered arms?
Not to my knowledge. I have a pdf (from JSTOR) of an article on it from
an article, Edith A. Standen, "The Carpet of Arms," _The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin_, New Series, 20 (1962), 221-231. The item was
acquired by the Metropolitan Museum (New York) in 1958. The carpet (or
tapestry) is dated 1564.
If you're curious, I've put the (black & white) photo of the item from
this article on my site, at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/heraldry/LewknorCarpet.jpg
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
taf
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
On Feb 15, 7:29 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
OK, now that I have seen it, I agree.
Curious error by the artist. I suspect the author in expanding John's
coat intended the Boville arms in quadrant 5, but forgot what he was
doing and mistakenly used John's unexpanded coat (as used for his
siblings) rather than a solely paternal coat, hence the Goushill/
chequy quarterly in 5.
Could it be or and vert (Hakeford)? I would think if they were going
to quarter Warenne they would do Fitz Alan as well. I have a Goushill
pedigree somewhere. I will have to dig it out.
taf
wrote:
I doubt this came from glass--I expect it's a copy of a more
contemporary ensemble that may well have been like this, on canvas (or
perhaps embroidery, like the interesting extant Lewkenor one).
OK, now that I have seen it, I agree.
Curious error by the artist. I suspect the author in expanding John's
coat intended the Boville arms in quadrant 5, but forgot what he was
doing and mistakenly used John's unexpanded coat (as used for his
siblings) rather than a solely paternal coat, hence the Goushill/
chequy quarterly in 5.
There are at least a couple of unknown Goushill spouses immediately
above the father of this Elizabeth Goushill, and it's certainly possible
that one of them was thought to have brought in a chequy coat--either an
obscure Warenne or some heraldic look-alike.
Could it be or and vert (Hakeford)? I would think if they were going
to quarter Warenne they would do Fitz Alan as well. I have a Goushill
pedigree somewhere. I will have to dig it out.
taf
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Wingfield Coats-of-Arms
Could it be or and vert (Hakeford)? I would think if they were going
to quarter Warenne they would do Fitz Alan as well. I have a Goushill
pedigree somewhere. I will have to dig it out.
taf
To add some information to this discussion, note that the Visitation of
Norfolk, (Harl. 1552) gives the Wingfield arms as
Quarterly of six:
1. (Wingfield)
2. (Boville)
3. (Goushill)
4. Quarterly 1 & 4 Gules, a lion rampant or, (Fitzalan), 2 & 3 Checky, or
and azure. (Warenne)
5. Ermine, on a chevron sable three crescents or
6. as the first
(The bracketed names are my additions to save typing)
So it seems that the family thought Fitzalan should be there as well by the
time of the visitation.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm