Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 01 okt 2007 17:41:44

Dear Newsgroup ~

We were informed this past week by an enthusiastic poster that the
arms used by two individuals in the period c.1300 indicated that they
were the eldest and third son of their father. This identification
was based on the so-called "standard" marks of cadency which were
employed in later time periods. The alleged eldest son used a label
on his arms for difference, and the alleged third son used a mullet
(or star) for difference on his arms.

However, in the period in question, c.1300, such rules of cadency
simply do not apply. In the past week or so, I gave two glaring
examples where these "rules" were not followed.

My first example was the arms that Thomas Bardolf (died 1328) employed
during his father's lifetime. According to Brault, he bore Azure
crusilly and three cinquefoils or [Reference: Brault, Rolls of Arms
Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997): 29]. After Thomas succeeded his father
in 1306, he omitted the crosslets. If "standard" rules of cadency
were followed, Thomas Bardolf as his father's son and heir would have
used a label to difference his arms, not crosslets.

In another post this past week I discussed two seals used by John
Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt, who died in 1386. These seals are
described in detail by Birch in his work, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum, 2 (1892): 540-541. This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... tetort#P...

The first of these seals was attached to a document dated 1358, and it
shows an annulet for a difference. According to "standard" marks of
cadency, this would mean that John Botetourt was his father's fifth
son. Yet we know for certain from other records that John Botetourt
was definitely his father's son and heir.

When the same seal was used later in 1363, Birch relates that the
annulet for difference in the field of the shield above the saltire
engrailed, had been apparently removed from, or filled up in the
matrix before impression;
"and faint traces of it remain." If Birch is correct, the matrix was
altered to remove to annulet for difference.

I think it goes without saying that it is always tempting to apply
modern "standards" to medieval cultural values. That's quite
understandable. However, this approach to medieval matters usually
gets us in trouble. The medieval man lived by a completely different
set of values and rules than the modern man does. We certainly know
the traditional marks of cadency that were employed in later periods.
Such marks of cadency are readily available to us in books on
heraldry. It only takes a small leap of logic to assume that the same
marks of cadency employed in more recent times were also used in the
earlier medieval time period. However, as we can see above, this
"assumption" is not correct.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2007 18:30:51

[inappropriate newsgroups removed]

On Oct 1, 9:41 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

We were informed this past week by an enthusiastic poster . . . .

Who, apparently, is below your dignity to name, even though you spend
an entire post disputing his 'enthusiastic' opinion?

The first of these seals was attached to a document dated 1358, and it
shows an annulet for a difference. According to "standard" marks of
cadency, this would mean that John Botetourt was his father's fifth
son. Yet we know for certain from other records that John Botetourt
was definitely his father's son and heir.

There is no 'we' here. This is the very issue under discussion. You
are begging the question to suggest that 'we' know this for certain
and then use this non-existent definitive collective knowledge as
evidence to refute the counter opinion.

I think it goes without saying that it is always tempting to apply
modern "standards" to medieval cultural values. That's quite
understandable. However, this approach to medieval matters usually
gets us in trouble.

.. . . as we learned recently with the Vernon/Camville question, where
an 'enthusiastic poster' was willing to rewrite the pedigree based in
part on the assumption that the modern rules of heraldry could be
applied to this medieval period. I guess it is a positive step that
the point actually got across, enabling this formerly-naive poster to
now pontificate at others on an issue that he failed to appreciate
just a few weeks ago.

taf

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 06:09:09

Douglas,

I am interested in this subject and would like to learn more. I
believe that the seal of Katherine Swynford for 1377 did indeed show a
mark of cadency, the pointed mullet (? star with a hole in it) which
was also described as being on the seal appended to the ca. 1330s
grant of arms to the brothers Andrewe by supposedly Paon Roet, which
has been described as a forgery, perhaps because of the mark of
cadency, but Birch's finding of Katherine's seal would seem to support
both the supposed Roet seal being genuine as well as perhaps the use
of such marks of cadency in that period.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Kindest regards,

Judy Perry
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

On Oct 1, 9:41 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

We were informed this past week by an enthusiastic poster that the
arms used by two individuals in the period c.1300 indicated that they
were the eldest and third son of their father. This identification
was based on the so-called "standard" marks of cadency which were
employed in later time periods. The alleged eldest son used a label
on his arms for difference, and the alleged third son used a mullet
(or star) for difference on his arms.

However, in the period in question, c.1300, such rules of cadency
simply do not apply. In the past week or so, I gave two glaring
examples where these "rules" were not followed.

My first example was the arms that Thomas Bardolf (died 1328) employed
during his father's lifetime. According to Brault, he bore Azure
crusilly and three cinquefoils or [Reference: Brault, Rolls of Arms
Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997): 29]. After Thomas succeeded his father
in 1306, he omitted the crosslets. If "standard" rules of cadency
were followed, Thomas Bardolf as his father's son and heir would have
used a label to difference his arms, not crosslets.

In another post this past week I discussed two seals used by John
Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt, who died in 1386. These seals are
described in detail by Birch in his work, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum, 2 (1892): 540-541. This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... tetort#P...

The first of these seals was attached to a document dated 1358, and it
shows an annulet for a difference. According to "standard" marks of
cadency, this would mean that John Botetourt was his father's fifth
son. Yet we know for certain from other records that John Botetourt
was definitely his father's son and heir.

When the same seal was used later in 1363, Birch relates that the
annulet for difference in the field of the shield above the saltire
engrailed, had been apparently removed from, or filled up in the
matrix before impression;
"and faint traces of it remain." If Birch is correct, the matrix was
altered to remove to annulet for difference.

I think it goes without saying that it is always tempting to apply
modern "standards" to medieval cultural values. That's quite
understandable. However, this approach to medieval matters usually
gets us in trouble. The medieval man lived by a completely different
set of values and rules than the modern man does. We certainly know
the traditional marks of cadency that were employed in later periods.
Such marks of cadency are readily available to us in books on
heraldry. It only takes a small leap of logic to assume that the same
marks of cadency employed in more recent times were also used in the
earlier medieval time period. However, as we can see above, this
"assumption" is not correct.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 03 okt 2007 07:34:58

This seems the obverse of the earlier problem, ie we are reading back
our own strict rules to "prove" that the Rouet grant of arms was a
forgery.

I think that you have to take things on their individual merits.
However as for differencing, it is clear that in the period about 1300
it was the custom, at least in England and Scotland, to difference the
arms of members of the same family. This is clear from many rolls of
arms, where sons, brothers and nephews have differenced arms. That
the differences were not standardised is also clear, not only from
those rolls, but also from the treatises on heraldry, were each author
puts up his own system as THE sytsem, without any real similarity
between many of the differences.

I am not sure when the differences settled down, but the system of
label, crescent, star (mullet), martlet, annulet, fleur de lys etc
seems only to have become regular at the turn of the C17/18. By that
time, at least in England, the custom of differencing had pretty much
died out, at least systematically, even if it was theoretically
required.

It does seem to me that from the evidence the label was originally
used as a difference to show the heir (but not exclusively), rather
than specifically the eldest son and there are suggestions that the
more points to the label, the more remote the heir, but this is just
the description of a tendency, not a system. Certainly in Scottish
heraldry of the C16, the label was adopted by the heir male of a
family, when the title and lands went to the heir of line (heir
general) under the normal feudal descent.

Incidentally a mullet with a hole in the middle is a pierced mullet in
England, but a spur-rowel in Scotland and the rest of Europe, in
France called a "mollet d'epernon" showing the original use of the
word "mullet", which usage has been changed in English heraldry.

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 21:12:15

On Oct 2, 11:34 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This seems the obverse of the earlier problem, ie we are reading back
our own strict rules to "prove" that the Rouet grant of arms was a
forgery.

--That what I was wondering about as well.

I think that you have to take things on their individual merits.
However as for differencing, it is clear that in the period about 1300
it was the custom, at least in England and Scotland, to difference the
arms of members of the same family. This is clear from many rolls of
arms, where sons, brothers and nephews have differenced arms. That
the differences were not standardised is also clear, not only from
those rolls, but also from the treatises on heraldry, were each author
puts up his own system as THE sytsem, without any real similarity
between many of the differences.

I am not sure when the differences settled down, but the system of
label, crescent, star (mullet), martlet, annulet, fleur de lys etc
seems only to have become regular at the turn of the C17/18. By that
time, at least in England, the custom of differencing had pretty much
died out, at least systematically, even if it was theoretically
required.

--Interesting. But it would seem that there was some usage of cadency
marks, however irregular, in the mid 14th-century in England in this
particular case, no?

It does seem to me that from the evidence the label was originally
used as a difference to show the heir (but not exclusively), rather
than specifically the eldest son and there are suggestions that the
more points to the label, the more remote the heir, but this is just
the description of a tendency, not a system. Certainly in Scottish
heraldry of the C16, the label was adopted by the heir male of a
family, when the title and lands went to the heir of line (heir
general) under the normal feudal descent.

Incidentally a mullet with a hole in the middle is a pierced mullet in
England, but a spur-rowel in Scotland and the rest of Europe, in
France called a "mollet d'epernon" showing the original use of the
word "mullet", which usage has been changed in English heraldry.

--Ahh, yes. Sorry -- last night I couldn't remember the pierced
part. Thank you for your analysis.

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 04 okt 2007 08:12:57

--Interesting. But it would seem that there was some usage of cadency
marks, however irregular, in the mid 14th-century in England in this
particular case, no?

I don't know how much work has been done on the C14. The basis

building blocks in this are the Rolls of Arms in the Aspilogia
series. So far we are up to 1307, the end of Edward I's reign. My
guess is that as we progress on towards the Tudor period, where it is
clear from the Visitations that there is an unsystematic use of
differences, but that thre meaning of the differences has been
standardised, we will find a gradual decline in the use of
differences, although presumably some convergence on which difference
means which cadency.

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2007 09:52:55

Who is the "we" and "where" is this being done?

Trying to learn what I can...

Kindest thanks,

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

On Oct 4, 12:12 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--Interesting. But it would seem that there was some usage of cadency
marks, however irregular, in the mid 14th-century in England in this
particular case, no?

I don't know how much work has been done on the C14. The basis
building blocks in this are the Rolls of Arms in the Aspilogia
series. So far we are up to 1307, the end of Edward I's reign. My
guess is that as we progress on towards the Tudor period, where it is
clear from the Visitations that there is an unsystematic use of
differences, but that thre meaning of the differences has been
standardised, we will find a gradual decline in the use of
differences, although presumably some convergence on which difference
means which cadency.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 okt 2007 23:54:53

Dear Judy ~

Thank you for your posts. It's always good to hear from you.

I made my initial post regarding marks of cadency before speaking with
my good friend, Jim Terzian. Jim is far more knowedgeable about
heraldic matters than I am. When I have a question about heraldry, I
usually call Jim and he has an immediate answer.

I've since spoken with Jim. He said that the examples I cited in my
post (that is, Thomas Bardolf and John Botetourt) are common enough
for the time period in question (14th Century). He said that the
modern system of marks of cadency as we know it came in from France
about 1500.

As such, I was correct to refute the statement made by our fellow
enthusiastic poster who suggested that marks of cadency existed in
England back in 1300. Jim Terzian says not. And Jim knows whereof he
speaks.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 okt 2007 01:46:20

[crossposts removed]

On Oct 7, 3:54 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

I made my initial post regarding marks of cadency before speaking with
my good friend, Jim Terzian. Jim is far more knowedgeable about
heraldic matters than I am. When I have a question about heraldry, I
usually call Jim and he has an immediate answer.

I've since spoken with Jim. He said that the examples I cited in my
post (that is, Thomas Bardolf and John Botetourt) are common enough
for the time period in question (14th Century). He said that the
modern system of marks of cadency as we know it came in from France
about 1500.

As such, I was correct to refute the statement made by our fellow
enthusiastic poster who suggested that marks of cadency existed in
England back in 1300. Jim Terzian says not. And Jim knows whereof he
speaks.

Your appeal to authority would be more convincing if your conclusion
was the same as that of your chum, rather than a deceptive spin. He
said (at least according to you) that the modern system came later,
NOT that there were no marks of cadency at all at the earlier time. In
fact, the posts of the 'enthusiastic poster' showed that the family
was using marks of cadency, so if you are going to crow and pat your
back across so many irrelevant newsgroups, perhaps more accuracy would
be in order.

taf

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2007 06:25:53

Dear Douglas (et al.),

Thank you for your kind response, but, now I'm confused: does your
expert say that cadency marks were NOT used AT ALL in the 14th C. in
England, or that the current system of cadency markers were not in use
at that time?

Birch's description of Katherine Swynford's 1377 seal seems quite
explicit that her seal had the three wheels with a pierced mullet, a
heraldic distinction she later apparently dropped. Of course,
depending upon the size of the seal in question, which seems no longer
to be extant (per Ms. Alison Weir IIRC), perhaps a later eye
accustomed to seeing traditional cadency marks might have seen them in
chips in the wax or other defects of very small seals... or perhaps
the pierced mullet was, indeed, present, which would seem to indicate
a mark of cadency.

What says your expert?

Perhaps I should as Mr. Lindsay Brook, if he has the time (he wrote an
FMG article on Payne Roet as you may recall), as I believe he is
associated with the College of Arms.

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

On Oct 7, 3:54 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Judy ~

Thank you for your posts. It's always good to hear from you.

I made my initial post regarding marks of cadency before speaking with
my good friend, Jim Terzian. Jim is far more knowedgeable about
heraldic matters than I am. When I have a question about heraldry, I
usually call Jim and he has an immediate answer.

I've since spoken with Jim. He said that the examples I cited in my
post (that is, Thomas Bardolf and John Botetourt) are common enough
for the time period in question (14th Century). He said that the
modern system of marks of cadency as we know it came in from France
about 1500.

As such, I was correct to refute the statement made by our fellow
enthusiastic poster who suggested that marks of cadency existed in
England back in 1300. Jim Terzian says not. And Jim knows whereof he
speaks.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2007 06:41:48

On Oct 7, 5:46 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
[crossposts removed]


YIKES!!

I'm sorry; I did not closely check to see that I was adding to the
cross-posting, to which I had no intention.

Thank you for pointing it out! I'll try to be more careful next time.

Kindest regards,

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Using traditional marks of cadency to denote birth order

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 okt 2007 09:33:16

On 8 oct, 00:54, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Judy ~

Thank you for your posts. It's always good to hear from you.

I made my initial post regarding marks of cadency before speaking with
my good friend, Jim Terzian. Jim is far more knowedgeable about
heraldic matters than I am. When I have a question about heraldry, I
usually call Jim and he has an immediate answer.

I've since spoken with Jim. He said that the examples I cited in my
post (that is, Thomas Bardolf and John Botetourt) are common enough
for the time period in question (14th Century). He said that the
modern system of marks of cadency as we know it came in from France
about 1500.

Unfortunately, the English "modern system of marks of cadency" was
never used in France, were there was never a "system": there was no
rule for the choice of marks of cadency.

Pierre

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»