I have received excellent information about my question about knights so I will offer another elemental question.
When the average person does their genealogy these days, they usually append a coat of arms that was attached at some time to their name, regardless of whether they really are a direct ancestor of the person who earned the arms. A part of this is vanity, the other part is just not knowing - the inability to trace back far enough to make the connection. After all, if my name is Armstrong, I could possibly be descended from a knight named Armstrong. And of course, who is to know?
My question is - did this also happen in the period after knights were no longer retained to fight battles. Did the rising middle class of the 16th and 17th centuries adopt coats of arms for purposes of status without regard to real genealogy. I know the visitations were supposed to verify the arms, but did this actually work in practice? If you had contacts or money, could you obtain arms even though your ancestors were serfs?
A perfect example that comes to mind is William Shakespeare. His father, John, the glover, aspired to a coat of arms, but did not obtain it until William was wealthy and had royal contacts. In this case, I don't think he used an earlier family coat of arms but originated a coat of arms. He also based it on some ancestor with military exploits. This seemed to be a necessary part of the formula.
Would it then be possible to trace a family from the 13th century to the 17th century based on a resurgence of a particular coat of arms or would it be as doubtful as it would be today.
Further question: Isn't the coat of arms supposed to alter from one generation to the next with marks to show the relation to the original bearer, or did this fall away in a few generations, or simply was not followed in practice?
Question about coats of arms
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Renia
Re: Question about coats of arms
Richard Bradley wrote:
Others are better-versed on this than me, but the coat of arms of a
medieval knight could not be passed down from father to son in the same
way they were a few generations later when the College of Arms got in on
the act. However, such arms were passed down and the heralds tried to
ratify them in their visitations. Not all arms were proven to be
legitimately held but descendants were reluctant to let go.
Coats of arms were granted to invididuals, not families of the same
name. The legitimate male heirs to the original grantee are entitled to
bear the same arms, but no one else of that name.
Social mobility was not impossible in medieval and Tudor England and
some lowly people did make it up the social hierarchy and were knighted
or bestowed a peerage for their service and granted a coat of arms.
Many coats of arms try to tell the story of the family. Modern British
musicians who have paid for coats of arms often have guitars and
suchlike on their achievements.
It can be taken as a clue but not absolute. For example, my own family's
coat of arms was not proven in the early 17th century, but a century
earlier, a family of a similar, but not variant, name and not relation
was using the same coat of arms. However, I have now found a variant of
our own surname with the same coat of arms as us in 13th century France.
Not necessarily but I'll let others answer that.
I have received excellent information about my question about knights so I will offer another elemental question.
When the average person does their genealogy these days, they usually append a coat of arms that was attached at some time to their name, regardless of whether they really are a direct ancestor of the person who earned the arms. A part of this is vanity, the other part is just not knowing - the inability to trace back far enough to make the connection. After all, if my name is Armstrong, I could possibly be descended from a knight named Armstrong. And of course, who is to know?
Others are better-versed on this than me, but the coat of arms of a
medieval knight could not be passed down from father to son in the same
way they were a few generations later when the College of Arms got in on
the act. However, such arms were passed down and the heralds tried to
ratify them in their visitations. Not all arms were proven to be
legitimately held but descendants were reluctant to let go.
Coats of arms were granted to invididuals, not families of the same
name. The legitimate male heirs to the original grantee are entitled to
bear the same arms, but no one else of that name.
My question is - did this also happen in the period after knights were no longer retained to fight battles. Did the rising middle class of the 16th and 17th centuries adopt coats of arms for purposes of status without regard to real genealogy. I know the visitations were supposed to verify the arms, but did this actually work in practice? If you had contacts or money, could you obtain arms even though your ancestors were serfs?
Social mobility was not impossible in medieval and Tudor England and
some lowly people did make it up the social hierarchy and were knighted
or bestowed a peerage for their service and granted a coat of arms.
A perfect example that comes to mind is William Shakespeare. His father, John, the glover, aspired to a coat of arms, but did not obtain it until William was wealthy and had royal contacts. In this case, I don't think he used an earlier family coat of arms but originated a coat of arms. He also based it on some ancestor with military exploits. This seemed to be a necessary part of the formula.
Many coats of arms try to tell the story of the family. Modern British
musicians who have paid for coats of arms often have guitars and
suchlike on their achievements.
Would it then be possible to trace a family from the 13th century to the 17th century based on a resurgence of a particular coat of arms or would it be as doubtful as it would be today.
It can be taken as a clue but not absolute. For example, my own family's
coat of arms was not proven in the early 17th century, but a century
earlier, a family of a similar, but not variant, name and not relation
was using the same coat of arms. However, I have now found a variant of
our own surname with the same coat of arms as us in 13th century France.
Further question: Isn't the coat of arms supposed to alter from one generation to the next with marks to show the relation to the original bearer, or did this fall away in a few generations, or simply was not followed in practice?
Not necessarily but I'll let others answer that.
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: Question about coats of arms
My question is - did this also happen in the period after knights were no longer retained to fight battles. Did the rising middle class of the 16th and 17th centuries adopt coats of arms for purposes of status without regard to real genealogy. I know the visitations were supposed to verify the arms, but did this actually work in practice? If you had contacts or money, could you obtain arms even though your ancestors were serfs?
Arms were adopted originally in England, then granted by an herald and
eventually granted by a Royal herald. It was a gradual evolution.
The visitations started in 1530 and were quite comprehensive. How
accurately they were done must have varied greatly. You would not
normally adopt the arms of a local family, because you would be found
out. In the early period, perhaps things were slipped through, but
these were much more likely to have been genealogical fabrications.
The arms were public knowledge and the herald would not want to make a
public fool of himself. Generally it was easier to get a grant than
to persuade the herald that the arms were legit. That applies up to
1687/8 when the visitations were discontinued. After that and
especially in the C19, fabrication ran riot, but was not endorsed by
the College of Arms.
A perfect example that comes to mind is William Shakespeare. His father, John, the glover, aspired to a coat of arms, but did not obtain it until William was wealthy and had royal contacts. In this case, I don't think he used an earlier family coat of arms but originated a coat of arms. He also based it on some ancestor with military exploits. This seemed to be a necessary part of the formula.
I don't think there was anything special about Shakespeare being
granted arms in the C16, his father was prominent enough, but the
son's profession might have been a disadvantage.
Would it then be possible to trace a family from the 13th century to the 17th century based on a resurgence of a particular coat of arms or would it be as doubtful as it would be today.
No. there just isn't enough evidence. On the other hand if they
retained the same lands and had the same arms as recorded in C13, and
that would be ca 1285 as for the earliest rolls of arms, then that
would be fine.
Further question: Isn't the coat of arms supposed to alter from one generation to the next with marks to show the relation to the original bearer, or did this fall away in a few generations, or simply was not followed in practice?
Originally all knights had differenced arms: it was a practical
necessity. Theoretically this still happens in England, but no-one
bothers and they haven't for hundreds of years. It's just a myth
which people keep on repeating. In Scotland arms are always
differenced when they are registered.
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Question about coats of arms
Richard Bradley wrote:
I'll give you the example of my family.
In the late 17th century, an Edmund Dickinson was physician to Charles II
and was awarded a coat of arms. My family have no apparent connection and
come from a different part of the country, but assumed the arms when we
gentrified around 1700. We've used them ever since - and other Dickinsons in
the county have assumed the arms from us. I believe that the College of Arms
kicked up a small fuss when my cousin used them as High Sheriff in the
1920s, but he bullied them into submission. His grandson had no problems in
using the arms as Deputy Lord Lieutenant.
The awarding of new arms, by the way, has nothing to do with ancestry. It is
a financial transaction.
<snip>
No - it is not possible to prove a descent based on a coat of arms.
On the whole, English practice rather frowns on such things. The general
idea is to keep the coat as simple and elegant as possible.
Chris
Did the rising middle class of the 16th and 17th centuries adopt coats of
arms for purposes of status without regard to real genealogy. I know the
visitations were supposed to verify the arms, but did this actually work
in practice? If you had contacts or money, could you obtain arms even
though your ancestors were serfs?
I'll give you the example of my family.
In the late 17th century, an Edmund Dickinson was physician to Charles II
and was awarded a coat of arms. My family have no apparent connection and
come from a different part of the country, but assumed the arms when we
gentrified around 1700. We've used them ever since - and other Dickinsons in
the county have assumed the arms from us. I believe that the College of Arms
kicked up a small fuss when my cousin used them as High Sheriff in the
1920s, but he bullied them into submission. His grandson had no problems in
using the arms as Deputy Lord Lieutenant.
The awarding of new arms, by the way, has nothing to do with ancestry. It is
a financial transaction.
<snip>
Would it then be possible to trace a family from the 13th century to the
17th century based on a resurgence of a particular coat of arms or would it
be as doubtful as it would be today.
No - it is not possible to prove a descent based on a coat of arms.
Further question: Isn't the coat of arms supposed to alter from one
generation to the next with marks to show the relation to the original
bearer, or did this fall away in a few generations, or simply was not
followed in practice?=
On the whole, English practice rather frowns on such things. The general
idea is to keep the coat as simple and elegant as possible.
Chris