Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2005 23:06:28

Dear Hal ~

I know of no evidence which suggests, implies, or proves that Amy de
Gavaston, wife of John de Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston,
Earl of Cornwall. Rather, all we know is that she was the daughter an
an unidentified Peter de Gavaston and, that prior to marriage, she
served as a lady in waiting to Queen Philippe of Hainault, wife of King
Edward III of England. End of story. Anything beyond that is mere
speculation.

In a related vein, I just posted about Sir John de Lacy, an
illegitimate son of Sir Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (died 1311).
Sir John de Lacy lived in the same time period as Amy de Gavaston.
John's parentage is proven by a petition dated c. 1335 in which Henry
de Lacy's daughter and heiress, Alice de Lacy, Countess of Lancaster,
referred to John de Lacy as her brother. That's contemporary evidence.
And that flies. No speculation there.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com

"Hal Bradley" wrote:
Paul C. Reed's "'Proving' Illegitimacy: Amie ... de Gaveston," National
Genealogical Society Quarterly 88:1 (Mar 2000)provides convincing arguments
for concluding that Amy was illegitimate and accounts for the arguments to
the contrary that were broached on sgm.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:55 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of
France


In a message dated 10/26/05 12:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
batruth@hotmail.com writes:

Margaret had Joan Gaveston in Jan. 1312. Amie de Gaveston was an
illegitimate daughter of Piers.

There was discussion on this group about whether it might not
have been Amy
who was the child born in 1312, and further discussion about
why Amy need not
have been illegitimate. I'm not sure that was resolved either way.
Will

Hal Bradley

RE: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 26 okt 2005 23:42:02

Paul C. Reed's "'Proving' Illegitimacy: Amie ... de Gaveston," National
Genealogical Society Quarterly 88:1 (Mar 2000)provides convincing arguments
for concluding that Amy was illegitimate and accounts for the arguments to
the contrary that were broached on sgm.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:55 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of
France


In a message dated 10/26/05 12:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
batruth@hotmail.com writes:

Margaret had Joan Gaveston in Jan. 1312. Amie de Gaveston was an
illegitimate daughter of Piers.

There was discussion on this group about whether it might not
have been Amy
who was the child born in 1312, and further discussion about
why Amy need not
have been illegitimate. I'm not sure that was resolved either way.
Will

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2005 02:09:01

In a message dated 10/26/05 3:15:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< I know of no evidence which suggests, implies, or proves that Amy de
Gavaston, wife of John de Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston,
Earl of Cornwall. >>

When did Ralph of Sapcote, become Lord Basset ?
It's interesting that he would marry a commoner like Alice de Driby isn't it?
He was her first husband? Was she his first wife?

Will Johnson

Gjest

re: Richard Blount of Maple Durham married Miss de la Ford

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2005 04:03:01

On Leo's fabulous website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

we see this person Richard Blount b est 1460
son of Thomas Blount of Milton Ross b 1414 and Catherine Clifton

Richard is shown marrying in May 1529 to Elizabeth de la Ford b 1510

http://www.stirnet.com shows this *same* Richard marrying to Dorothy de la Ford and
dying in 1509

Who can clear this confusion up?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Sutliff

Re: Richard Blount of Maple Durham married Miss de la Ford

Legg inn av Sutliff » 27 okt 2005 16:58:17

My sources for this are Croke and Paget which give the wife of Richard
Blount of Mapledurham Gournay as Elizabeth de la Ford or Delaford of Iver,
Bucks. Curiously I have an earlier date of death for this Richard as 30
November 1506.Children of this marriage were: Sir Richard Blount, Barnabas
Blount and three daughters, two named Elizabeth and an Anne. The son Sir
Richard d. 1564 was husband of Elizabeth Lyster d. bet 14 Feb 1581 and 2 Jun
1582. This couple also had a son Richard and his wife was Elizabeth West,
daughter of 10th Lord Del Le Warr, so I am not sure who Dorothea was married
to. The middle Richard and his wife Elizabeth Lyster were buried at
Mapledurham Gournay. If I recall rightly Cooke's The Early History of
Mapledurham will also give further information to those interested in the
Buxhall, Iwardby, Lynde, Bardolf, Beverley and of course, the Gournay
families.

Henry Sutliff

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:e2.1f29b37c.30918f20@aol.com...
On Leo's fabulous website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

we see this person Richard Blount b est 1460
son of Thomas Blount of Milton Ross b 1414 and Catherine Clifton

Richard is shown marrying in May 1529 to Elizabeth de la Ford b 1510

http://www.stirnet.com shows this *same* Richard marrying to Dorothy de la Ford
and
dying in 1509

Who can clear this confusion up?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Richard Blount of Maple Durham married Miss de la Ford

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 okt 2005 18:09:12

In message of 27 Oct, "Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote:

My sources for this are Croke and Paget which give the wife of Richard
Blount of Mapledurham Gournay as Elizabeth de la Ford or Delaford of Iver,
Bucks. Curiously I have an earlier date of death for this Richard as 30
November 1506.Children of this marriage were: Sir Richard Blount, Barnabas
Blount and three daughters, two named Elizabeth and an Anne. The son Sir
Richard d. 1564 was husband of Elizabeth Lyster d. bet 14 Feb 1581 and 2 Jun
1582. This couple also had a son Richard and his wife was Elizabeth West,
daughter of 10th Lord Del Le Warr, so I am not sure who Dorothea was married
to. The middle Richard and his wife Elizabeth Lyster were buried at
Mapledurham Gournay. If I recall rightly Cooke's The Early History of
Mapledurham will also give further information to those interested in the
Buxhall, Iwardby, Lynde, Bardolf, Beverley and of course, the Gournay
families.

A H Cooke (D.Sc, Fellow and later dean of King's College Cambridge)
calls her Elizabeth Delaford and gives none of the dates below save the
deaths of some of the Blounts. (pp. 134-6 amd 208-9)

Henry Sutliff

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:e2.1f29b37c.30918f20@aol.com...
On Leo's fabulous website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

we see this person Richard Blount b est 1460
son of Thomas Blount of Milton Ross b 1414 and Catherine Clifton

Richard is shown marrying in May 1529 to Elizabeth de la Ford b 1510

http://www.stirnet.com shows this *same* Richard marrying to Dorothy de la Ford
and
dying in 1509

Who can clear this confusion up?
Thanks
Will Johnson





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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 okt 2005 18:20:42

In message of 27 Oct, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/26/05 3:15:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I know of no evidence which suggests, implies, or proves that Amy de
Gavaston, wife of John de Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston,
Earl of Cornwall.

In CP I, p. 8 (there are no corrections to the following in Vol XIV nor
on Chris Phillips' site):

When did Ralph of Sapcote, become Lord Basset ?

1370/1

His name is given as Ralph Basset, lord Basset of Sapcote.

It's interesting that he would marry a commoner like Alice de Driby
isn't it?

(There were no more than 100 nobles in the kingdon then, all the rest
were commoners. And she was granddaughter of an earl of Cornwall.)

He was her first husband?

Yes.

Was she his first wife?

No. That was Sibyl Astley, sister of Thomas 3rd lord Astley.

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

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2005 20:24:02

In a message dated 10/27/05 10:36:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< > It's interesting that he would marry a commoner like Alice de Driby
isn't it?

(There were no more than 100 nobles in the kingdon then, all the rest
were commoners. And she was granddaughter of an earl of Cornwall.) >>

Tim that's what I was obliquely pointing out.
Against the argument that Amy de Gaveston was *not* a descendent of an Earl
of Cornwall (Piers d 1312) would be the argument that her daughter Alice
married Lord Basset. Even though Piers was executed, his descendents might still
have been considered highly placed enough to marry Lord's.

While on the other hand, a commoner or no known lineage marrying a lord
would be a little more unusual wouldn't it?

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 okt 2005 00:25:09

In message of 27 Oct, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/27/05 10:36:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

It's interesting that he would marry a commoner like Alice de Driby
isn't it?

I did not write that!

(There were no more than 100 nobles in the kingdon then, all the rest
were commoners. And she was granddaughter of an earl of Cornwall.)

Though I did indeed write that.

Tim that's what I was obliquely pointing out.
Against the argument that Amy de Gaveston was *not* a descendent of
an Earl of Cornwall (Piers d 1312) would be the argument that her
daughter Alice married Lord Basset.

Has anyone said that Amy de Gaveston was not a daughter of Piers de
Gaveston?

Even though Piers was executed, his descendents might still have been
considered highly placed enough to marry Lord's.

I wonder if the marriages were based on someone being 'highly enough
placed'? The documentations that survive are usually concentrated on
significant settlements on both parties to the marriage. And if, in the
property-holding classes, someone had no dowry, he or she was unlikely
to marry well. Reports have it that the Dribys (or Derbys) had some
property and some of this would have secured the marriage to young Ralph
Basset.

While on the other hand, a commoner or no known lineage marrying a
lord would be a little more unusual wouldn't it?

I don't think lineage was what counted, it was assets.

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

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2005 01:45:03

In a message dated 10/27/05 4:36:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Has anyone said that Amy de Gaveston was not a daughter of Piers de
Gaveston? >>

Yes there was a post here shortly before that stated that we do not know that
she was a daughter of Piers de Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, but only of *some*
Piers de Gaveston. Maybe you missed that post.

Will

Leo

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Leo » 28 okt 2005 01:58:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of France


Has anyone said that Amy de Gaveston was not a daughter of Piers de
Gaveston?

Even though Piers was executed, his descendents might still have been
considered highly placed enough to marry Lord's.

I unstand Amy was the daughter of Piers de Gaveston full stop-----it is not

even certain this Piers was THE Piers.
Leo

Ginny Wagner

Horham

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 31 okt 2005 23:27:01

This is probably a stupid question, but did Horham become
Northampton? I'm looking at a book of plates, the plate of
an original charter is "ap Horham" but the text says it is
ca. 1135-1140 at Northampton. It isn't the first I've seen
like this. If Horham changed to Northampton, when did that
change?

Thanks, Ginny

Gjest

Re: Alleged divorces of the King of France's sons, 1314

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 02:52:02

In a message dated 10/31/05 12:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< "In the spring of 1314, at the age of eighteen [Isabella, wife of
Edward II of England] had visited Paris and met her father [King Philip
IV of France]. She had unburdened herself of the terrible knowledge
that all three of her brothers were having adulterous affairs wth two
knights in the Touer de Nesles. Philip had the two men watched, and
apprehended them. They died cruel deaths... [and] the women too were
severely punished: divorced from their husband and imprisoned for
life." >>

First this quote seems to imply it is the BROTHERS who are having affairs
with the knights. Are you sure you accurately quoted it ?

Second, the daughters-in-law were summarily imprisoned; the eldest son's wife
died in prison shortly afterward, in mysterious circumstances, and the wife
of the third son agreed to be divorced before taking the veil.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alleged divorces of the King of France's sons, 1314

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 04:23:02

Dear Will and Others,
The innocent wife, Jeanne of Burgundy, wife
of Philip V, King of France and daughter of Otto V, Count of Burgundy /
Franche Comte was mother by him of two daughters, Jeanne, wife of Eudes IV, Duke of
Burgundy and Marguerite, wife of Louis I(II) Count of Flanders. The second
daughter has numerous descendants, being ancestress to the Ducal House of
Burgundy which descended from John II de Valois, King of France. (See Leo Van de
Pas` Genealogics website ) Marguerite de France born 1310.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Y

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 21:25:02

In a message dated 11/1/05 2:52:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

<< held on 19th January 1265/6 (Tuesday before the conversion of St. Paul 50
HIII) she is stated to be the second daughter aged 10 and unmarried.

Two years later, when the Inquisition was held following the death of her
youngest sister, Alice, (Tuesday after the purification 52 HIII) she is
called Isabel de Merlay and therefore presumably unmarried.

Therefore she appears to have only been born about 1258.

Following the death of Alice, on 6 November 1270, a Writ of partition was
issued >>

This is confusing.
1) Her father's I.P.M. is here stated to be 19 Jan 1265/6
2) Then "two years later" her sister Alice died. (so 1267/8 ?)
3) But then Alice died again on 6 Nov 1270 ?

Or Should this last phrase be read as "A Writ of partition was issued on 6
Nov 1270, which date was after the death of Alice [which had occurred sometime
before]..."

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Y

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 21:39:05

That would be the natural reading of the sentence as written,
particularly given the other facts. That first comma is the important
one!

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 21:40:03

I've found a rather odd example.

Charles Albert King of Sardinia 1831-49 has a very very elaborate shield with
at least 15 different designs on it, depending on how you view it I suppose.

At any rate, his father was Charles Emanuel, Prince of Savoy-Carignan who,
he, has a rather simple shield of a silver cross on a red background on the left
half, and the gold fleur-de-lis on a blue background with a single red stripe
and a red border, on the right half.

None of this makes it to the shield of his son, first quarter or otherwise.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 22:14:37

Foreign arms of dominion don't really translate into good analogies for
English heraldic law.

Furthermore, a quick look at some reputable heraldic texts make it
clear that we cannot necessarily extrapolate ancient practice from
modern rules.

In 'The Oxford Guide to Heraldry' , Woodcock (now Norroy & Ulster) and
Robinson have this to say (p 134): "Since the 16th century, quartering
in England has signified representation in blood".

Fox-Davies in 'A Complete Guide to Heraldry' (1985 revised edition)
states at p 417:

"But it should not be imagined that the definite rules which exist at
the moment had any such unalterable character in early times. Husbands
are found to have quartered the arms of their wives if they were
heiresses... territorial arms of dominion were quartered with personal
arms, quarterings of augmentation were granted, and the present system
is the endeavour to reconcile all the varying circumstances and
precendents which exist."

Thus, relatively early heraldry can usefully serve us as a guard, but
cannot be relied upon to convey the exact sense of meaning that
(correctly marshalled and displayed) heraldry does today.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Y

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 22:18:25

Fox-Davies also says:

"[In early times] we find that quarterings were selected in a manner
which would seem to us haphazard. Paternal quarterings were dropped
and the result has been that many coats of arms are now known as the
arms of a family with quite a different surname from that of the family
with which they originated".

(A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1985 revised edition, p 417)

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 22:24:01

In a message dated 11/1/05 1:16:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Foreign arms of dominion don't really translate into good analogies for
English heraldic law.

Furthermore, a quick look at some reputable heraldic texts make it
clear that we cannot necessarily extrapolate ancient practice from
modern rules. >>

Right that was the point I was trying to make. That there are no consistent
rules.
For every hard rule, there are exceptions and then people do backflips trying
to explain away each exceptions as an exception. Instead of just realizing
that there were no hard rules to begin with.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2005 22:25:09

I meant to write "relatively early heraldry can usefully serve us as a
guide", and not as a 'guard'.

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 00:06:02

In a message dated 10/31/05 5:37:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< > In a message dated 10/31/05 6:37:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

I have never seen an armiger do anything other than put his
patrinomial arms in the first quarter.

You didn't say could here Tim :)
You said "never", and for each example brought forth, you call it an
"exception" instead of just recognizing that there was no such rule ;)~~~~~

Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 01:14:35

In message of 1 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/31/05 5:37:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

In a message dated 10/31/05 6:37:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

I have never seen an armiger do anything other than put his
patrinomial arms in the first quarter.

You didn't say could here Tim :)
You said "never", and for each example brought forth, you call it an
"exception" instead of just recognizing that there was no such rule ;)~~~~~

Never seen means "never seen". Does not mean "does not exist" Geddit?

I am only too well aware that all heraldic rules are broken (like this
broken record of repeating myself) by someone at some time and will
continue so to be. These are rules as in "the normal rule"; while some
people refer to them as "laws" and even "science" this has no
justification in fact (save in Scotland), though science in its old
sense meant "body of knowledge" so might be acceptable.

The other pifall with heradlry is that each heraldic authority, for
those countries with heraldic authorities, has different rules. There
is no such thing as Universal Rules of heraldry.

Finally of course in those countries such as the USA with no heraldic
authority, there are no heraldic rules at all. Though, as in any
club, some people may get together and agree between themselves to
conform to certain rules. In fact the status in England is much the
same as there is no legal sanction for breaking any rule, only the
disapprobation of the congnoscenti, the members of the informal club.

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

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 01:41:02

In a message dated 11/1/05 4:22:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< I am only too well aware that all heraldic rules are broken >>

And I don't see evidence of this rule.
Another exacmple to show you that there was no such rule at all to be broken

Henry Pole, Lord Montague puts his own father's shield as his second quarter
not his first.

Also Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham puts his male-line device as his
second quarter, not his first.

Richard Pole d 1504 creates an entirely new shield unrelated to his male-line
ancestor Richard, Duke of York who had already quartered HIS shield.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 03:04:53

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/1/05 4:22:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I am only too well aware that all heraldic rules are broken

And I don't see evidence of this rule.

This is not a rule like a scientific law where on contradictory event
disporoves the law. It is more like a speeding law where people break
it all the time but the law still remains. And of course the rules of
any country's heraldry (except Scotland) have no force in law.

Another exacmple to show you that there was no such rule at all to be
broken

A few miscreants, probably with permission, do not make the rule
invalid. As above, this is not a law of any science.

Henry Pole, Lord Montague puts his own father's shield as his second
quarter not his first.

Well his mother was later executed for supposedly doing naughty things
with the royal arms. So these things were taken fairly seriously. I
would therefore imagine that Harry got Big Cheese Harry to allow him to
do this first. Where was this coat that he put up?

(The College of Arms gives him two distinct arms, so he could have put
either of these first. I happen to be able to quarter his arms and the
College showed them both on the work they did for my grandfather.)

Also Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham puts his male-line device as his
second quarter, not his first.

Again where is this to be seen?

Richard Pole d 1504 creates an entirely new shield unrelated to his
male-line ancestor Richard, Duke of York who had already quartered
HIS shield.

I wonder who you are referring to here? The Richard Poole who died in
1504 was the son of Geoffrey Poole who died in 1479 and had no
ancestral connection with any Richard duke of York, being thought to
have come out of the Welshpool area with Owen Tudor. Of course his wife
had that connection. Can you give more details?

This business of formally changing arms is not uncommon. In fact three
of my four gt-grandfathers had this done; the major difference of our
times is that I have been able to acquire copies of the formal documents
allowing them to do this. Of course if you can't be bothered with the
rules, you just go and make the change yourself; same as with speed
limits.

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

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 03:42:01

In a message dated 11/1/05 6:22:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< I wonder who you are referring to here? The Richard Poole who died in
1504 was the son of Geoffrey Poole who died in 1479 and had no
ancestral connection with any Richard duke of York, >>

Oops I misread here. Ignore this *example* as it isn't in fact an example of
anything except that I can't follow lines with my fingertip. It was in fact
his *wife* who was so descended.

My other two examples however are good :) and they are in Heraldry of the
Royal Families of Europe by Jiri Louda and Michael MacLagan. I expect they
should be a fairly reputable source as the shields are the main point of the book.

But see you keep insisting there are no rules except this one, and treating
all my examples as exceptions. While I am stating this this one rule of yours,
isn't itself a rule either :)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 10:05:41

Again, one must be careful not to confuse European heraldic traditions
with English ones. There is considerable difference, particularly when
one is dealing with territorial arms. In general terms, the only
proper analogies for English heraldic usage can be drawn from other
English heraldic examples.

MA-R

R. Battle

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av R. Battle » 02 nov 2005 10:13:31

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Again, one must be careful not to confuse European heraldic traditions
with English ones. There is considerable difference, particularly when
one is dealing with territorial arms. In general terms, the only
proper analogies for English heraldic usage can be drawn from other
English heraldic examples.

If this is in reply to Nat's Ayala-Blount message, then the example given
*is* English (unless you are arguing that the Blounts adopted non-English
rules when they descended from a Spanish lady).

-Robert Battle

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 10:18:24

No, it is a caution to Will against placing over-reliance upon examples
from, inter alia, Louda and MacLagan's excellent work. Sorry - my
server seems to be hopelessly sporadic about attributing the post to
which I am replying.

Michael

Peter Sutton

RE: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Y

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 02 nov 2005 11:48:02

To avoid any further confusion:

1. At an inquest held on the Tuesday after the Purification 52 HIII Isabel
de Merlay was stated to be aged 12 and one of the heirs of her sister Alice
de Merlay. As Isabel is called "de Merlay" presumably she was not married
at this date. Alice obviously died sometime before this date.

2. Isabel de Merlay appears to have been born about 1256 and not as I
previously said about 1258.

3. The writ of partition was issued on 6th November 1270 and the partition
took place on 4th March 1270/1.


Peter Sutton

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 01 November 2005 20:24
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Yorks

In a message dated 11/1/05 2:52:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

<< held on 19th January 1265/6 (Tuesday before the conversion of St. Paul 50
HIII) she is stated to be the second daughter aged 10 and unmarried.

Two years later, when the Inquisition was held following the death of her
youngest sister, Alice, (Tuesday after the purification 52 HIII) she is
called Isabel de Merlay and therefore presumably unmarried.

Therefore she appears to have only been born about 1258.

Following the death of Alice, on 6 November 1270, a Writ of partition was
issued >>

This is confusing.
1) Her father's I.P.M. is here stated to be 19 Jan 1265/6
2) Then "two years later" her sister Alice died. (so 1267/8 ?)
3) But then Alice died again on 6 Nov 1270 ?

Or Should this last phrase be read as "A Writ of partition was issued on 6
Nov 1270, which date was after the death of Alice [which had occurred
sometime before]..."

Thanks
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 15:01:39

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/1/05 6:22:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I wonder who you are referring to here? The Richard Poole who
died in 1504 was the son of Geoffrey Poole who died in 1479 and had
no ancestral connection with any Richard duke of York,

Oops I misread here. Ignore this *example* as it isn't in fact an
example of anything except that I can't follow lines with my
fingertip. It was in fact his *wife* who was so descended.

My other two examples however are good :) and they are in Heraldry of
the Royal Families of Europe by Jiri Louda and Michael MacLagan. I
expect they should be a fairly reputable source as the shields are the
main point of the book.

I regret I don't have that book so can't see what they are referring to.

But see you keep insisting there are no rules except this one, and
treating all my examples as exceptions. While I am stating this this
one rule of yours, isn't itself a rule either :)

Come off it: The point is what, if anything, an achievement of arms
means. The answer to this is that it is a display of your own personal
arms plus those you wish to add of the families of which you are a
co-representative. If you put your personal arms in a box other than
the first you are saying that you are merely a representative of that
family, not the arms holder.

It was a common practice in medieval times to change one's arms,
probably because, unlike now, it was so cheap to do so. Accordingly we
need to find out what the people concerned were using as their personal
arms. Regrattably we have limited chance of doing this as there are
virtually no surviving documents on this sort of thing from those
times. That said I would be prepared to bet that the Staffords got
permission to use their differenced royal arms as their personal arms;
it was just too risky to display the royal arms, albeit differenced, as
personal arms without permission. Can you imagine them going on a
tournament ground displaying the (differenced) royal arms as their
personal arms, particularly with the king there, unless they had had
permission?

(Did the Staffords have these differenced royal arms in the first slot
in that book? Burke list them as using such. If not, ignore the
above.)

Nevertheless some people get this wrong and put in the first slot the
arms that they think most important and prestigious. It just does not
make sense to do so - and it is most interesting to see that while the
Blounts did this for a while they then reverted to putting their
probable family coat in position number 1 of an achievement of arms.

For instance one connection of some forbears, in the early nineteenth
century drew an acheivement of arms for her family which had all sorts
of arms of people that her family were not representatives of. Perhaps
that was precisely what she intended but it certainly wasn't what is
known as an achievement of arms.

The fact that the rule is broken, does not mean it is not a rule. Same
as speed limits.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 15:38:12

In message of 2 Nov, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

No, it is a caution to Will against placing over-reliance upon examples
from, inter alia, Louda and MacLagan's excellent work. Sorry - my
server seems to be hopelessly sporadic about attributing the post to
which I am replying.

Your headers show that you use Google groups.

To include quoting the post you are replying to, proceed as follows:

1. In the display of the full note being replied to, click on "show
options", it's a little under the title of the posting.

2. Then click on "Reply" and you will (should) get a box with the
original posting there in front of you.

3. Delete the irrelvant parts of the original posting

4. Do your thing!

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

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 17:02:54

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 2 Nov, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Sorry - my server seems to be hopelessly sporadic about
attributing the post to which I am replying.

Your headers show that you use Google groups.

To include quoting the post you are replying to, proceed as follows:

4. Do your thing!


Thanks Tim - have takn up your kind tips and hope it works!

In the Stafford case, wasn't one of the charges against the (Stafford)
Duke of Buckingham in 1521 that he was boasting too much of his royal
descent, including the prominent quartering of the (impartible) Royal
Arms? Nevertheless, the old rule used to be that where quarterings
included the Royal Arms, that quartering went first as a sign of
respect to those Arms, so the Royal Quartering is not really a good
example of displacement of the patrinominal coat.

Cheers, Michael

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 17:31:02

In a message dated 11/2/2005 6:23:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Come off it: The point is what, if anything, an achievement of arms
means. The answer to this is that it is a display of your own personal
arms plus those you wish to add of the families of which you are a
co-representative. If you put your personal arms in a box other than
the first you are saying that you are merely a representative of that
family, not the arms holder.



This is your understanding or interpretation, that does not make it a fact.
I have already given several examples. The first ones you claim weren't
valid, the later ones you claim you can't verify. I did make one blunder, but
the rest are accurate (I rechecked again).

Maybe you should "come off it" :) and realize that there were no "rules" for
representing your own patrilineal (not personal) arms in the first quarter.
I hope you're not going to respond that you now meant personal when it's
been apparent that you have been speaking of the male-line descent
("patrilineal") arms :)

Otherwise, we have to start all over again.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 17:33:02

In a message dated 11/2/2005 6:23:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Can you imagine them going on a
tournament ground displaying the (differenced) royal arms as their
personal arms, particularly with the king there, unless they had had
permission?



Tim....
There are simply *tons* of people displaying the royal arms in their first
slot.
And not just England but France as well and sometimes both. In fact there
are so many it was difficult to find the examples I cited.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 17:33:02

In a message dated 11/2/2005 6:23:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

The fact that the rule is broken, does not mean it is not a rule. Same
as speed limits.


And the fact that you continue to insist that a rule existed, does not mean
it did.
Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 18:54:44

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

This is your understanding or interpretation, that does not make it a
fact. I have already given several examples. The first ones you
claim weren't valid, the later ones you claim you can't verify. I
did make one blunder, but the rest are accurate (I rechecked again).

There were two cases remaining of the three you had given, Poole the
younger and Stafford.

You have not explained what was different in the Poole arms, merely
stating that they were different. I then postulated some explanation
of what happened, that they had two arms, to which you have not replied.

Then with the Staffords I said that they might have had permission to
use the (differenced) royal arms as their personal arms, as these are
what are mentioned as such in Burke's "General Armory". And asked for
confirmation whether this was what they had done (or ignore what I had
said). As yet you have not clarified this.

Further there is the explanation that there was a convention that those
who had a (differenced) royal quartering in their achievement were to
display that first. I can well believe that was a rule at some times
though have no heard of it before. But it is not a rule now, the rule
has changed. Same as speed limits changing.

I should explain for those who don't know of differencing that the
undifferenced, plain royal arms can only be used by the sovereign.
So the royal children cannot inherit their father's (usually) arms.
So they take up some arms with an extra pattern on them to make them
different. The patterns are nomally on labels but are sometimes
on borders. So anyone who has inherited a quartering of the royal arms
has not in fact inherited the royal arms as such but only a differenced
version of those arms. People who were thought to be displaying the
royal arms were threatened with having their head chopped off and
indeed this happened to the countess of Salisbury in 1541, though the
whole thing sounded very trumped up.

Maybe you should "come off it" :) and realize that there were no
"rules" for representing your own patrilineal (not personal) arms
in the first quarter. I hope you're not going to respond that you now
meant personal when it's been apparent that you have been speaking
of the male-line descent ("patrilineal") arms :)

Normally "personal" and patrilineal" arms are the same thing until a
chappie changes his arms to some other ones. I have explained the fact
of arms changing several times.

Shall I produce a quote from Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry",
1954 edition, p. 548 [the '_' signs indicate his italics and the bit
in brackets is Fox-Davies'] :

"Given your pedigree--the first quartering _must_ be _the pronominal
coat_ (I am here presuming no change of name or arms has occurred),
which is the coat of arms of the strict male line of descent."

Can't be much plainer than that.

Otherwise, we have to start all over again.

The beginning of this was in fact that I was saying, and not in response
to anything you had written, that the rules of (even English) heraldry
cannot be universally applied as there were always exceptions. I think
our conversation has proven beyond doubt that this is true. How then,
can we start all over again?

I think enough has been said on this and it is time, even long past the
time, to bring it to an end.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 18:59:39

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/2/2005 6:23:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Can you imagine them going on a
tournament ground displaying the (differenced) royal arms as their
personal arms, particularly with the king there, unless they had had
permission?



Tim....
There are simply *tons* of people displaying the royal arms in their
first slot. And not just England but France as well and sometimes
both. In fact there are so many it was difficult to find the
examples I cited.

But my point was that of getting permission. Though it sounds as if
there was a rule that if there was a (differenced) royal quartering
that had to be displayed first. I have not heard of that rule before
though it is plausible. The rule no longer applies.

Certainly no one would have been using the undifferenced royal arms as
that was a head chopping off case.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of shield was The 3 Walter Griffiths of Bu

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 19:15:07

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/2/2005 6:23:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

The fact that the rule is broken, does not mean it is not a rule.
Same as speed limits.


Though I did not write the next sentence.

And the fact that you continue to insist that a rule existed, does
not mean it did.

I have quoted a heraldic expert to show that the rule exists now,
though he was known for being a bit firm about his rules. I do not
know when it developed into its modern form but it certainly has and
until the Blount example was produced I had not seen anything different
to the rule. From the books in my possession I can produce other
quotations from other experts saying the same thing.

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

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 21:26:02

I wrote

(still need further evidence that Sir Thomas' father fits in
as I have him)

I was kindly sent some Browne extracts from _English Parish Records:
Lancashire (Salford & West Derby Hundreds), Cheshire, Flintshire compiled from
Ancestry.com_, which confirmed that I had the correct place for the above Sir
Thomas's father and contained some additional information of the Brownes of Upton
family. I have also now received an article from _Cheshire History_ No 39
1999-2000 published by Cheshire Local History Association called _The Browne
Family at Upton by Chester_, but unfortunately I find errors in this article
(eg younger brother being born at least 20 years before his elder brother),
and have not used its information.

I have some details of the Browne from nearby Netherleigh and a claim they
were descended from the Brownes of Upton, but I do not know how they were
connected, and have excluded them.

I am a little surprised that the genius of Sir Thomas Browne is not more
evident in the genes of his ancestors.

So here is the enlarged pedigree:



THOMAS BROWNE of Upton by Chester, Cheshire m Alice, ?Whitley or possibly
White of Shotton

]
RICHARD BROWNE of Upton, Cheshire m Katherine or Constance Harvey of Sutton,
by 1572 both of Upton
]
THOMAS BROWNE (1640-1578; Will) of Hoole and Upton, both nr Chester m 1558
Elizabeth (-1602 bur St Peters, Chester) d of HENRY BERKENHED of Huxley,
Cheshire, Clerk of the Green Cloth to Q Elizabeth
]
A] HENRY BROWNE (-1580 dsp Oxford)
B] RICHARD BROWNE of Upton (1562-1624/5 bur St Werburghs, Chester) In 1579
matric Brasenose Coll; Oxford; In 1583 at Inner Temple; m1 d&h of RICHARD
SHULGAVE (issue d young) m2 Frances d of Sir GEORGE BEVERLEY Knt. of Huntington,
Cheshire; m3 Mary (1581-1668) d of Sir THOMAS ASTON (-4 Aug 1613) Knt, of
Aston, Cheshire by his m1 Elizabeth d of Sir ARTHUR MAINWARINGE of Ighfeld,
Salop, (Mary m2 JACQUES ARNODIO)
C] THOMAS BROWNE (-1613) liveryman of Mercer’s Company; Of Upton, Cheshire
and London; m Anna d&ch of PAUL GARRAWAY of Lewes, Sussex (She m2 Sir THOMAS
DUTTON)
D] EDWARD BROWNE In 1616 he sent his nephew to Winchester College; m
Katherine They left Richard, Matthew, Thoms and Barbara
E] HUGH BROWNE (-<1603sp)
F] FRANCIS BROWNE (-<1603sp)
G] FARDINANDO BROWNE
H] WILLIAM BROWNE
I] Ann m JOHN SMETHWICK of Geldon Sutton (left JOHN, GEORGE, Anne and Jane)
J] Jane (-1627) m RICHARD HARTLEY of Chester (left Thomas, Richard, Alice
dsp and Elizabeth dsp)
Issue of B] RICHARD BROWNE by his m3 Mary Aston
1] THOMAS BROWNE (c1610-1643 Ir) of Upton, Cheshire and Ireland; Inherited
Haswall manor; m 1631 in Ireland, Grissell Dobb (-1641, bur St Mary's, Upton)
2] RICHARD BROWNE, of London, and in 1646 of Upton; Silk-man; Lieut to Sir
RICHARD. GROSVENOR; In 1646 his estates were sequestered as a Royalist; m
Susan Cole of New St Albans.
Issue of 1] THOMAS BROWNE
i) FRANCIS BROWNE (1638-1638)
ii) THOMAS BROWNE (1639 - 1702 buried St Mary's, Upton) m Cicely (-1661
childbirth) d of WILLIAM GLEGG, of Gayton and left Cicely Browne, (1661-1702
buried St Mary's, Upton)
iii) ROBERT BROWNE (1640-1664. buried St Mary's, Upton)
iv) RICHARD BROWNE (1641-1641)
v) Mary Browne (1632-) m THOMAS CRITCHLEY of Chester
vi) Judith Browne (1634-) m THOMAS. KELSALL of Trafford.
vii) Grissell Browne (1635-) m1 JOHN LEATHER of Bowden, m2 OWEN SANDERSON,
gent.
viii) Dorothy Browne (1636-) m THOMAS SHEPHERD of London
Issue of 2] RICHARD BROWNE
THOMAS BROWNE als DUNCOMBE (-1717x1720) of Westminster and London; Receiver
gen of Excise; Changed his name to Duncombe; m Ursula d of ALEXANDER DUNCOME
(1619–1746) of Drayton Thomas Browne had a nephew John Browne (-<1717) who in
1717 had minor issue and a niece Matha Ely (wdw in 1717) who, at that date
had six minor issue
]
THOMAS BROWNE (–1746) changed name to DUNCOMBE m Mary d of Sir THOMAS
SLINGSBY, Bart (» 3s+2d see 003, descendants surnamed Duncombe)
and
Mary, Browne alias Duncombe (1681-1716/7 sp after long illness bur Westm
Abbey) m (seperated) 30 Dec. 1701, JOHN CAMPBELL Duke of Argyll He m2 1717 Jane
Warburton
Issue of C] THOMAS BROWNE
I] THOMAS BROWNE (19 Oct 1605 Cheapside, London - 16 Oct 1682 bur St Peter's
Mancroft, Norwich); Knt (1671); MD; of London and Norwich, Ed Winchester
College & Broadgate Hall (now Pembroke College) Oxford; well traveled;
theologian and author of diverse works; m 1641 Dorothy (1621-1685) 4d of EDWARD
MILEHAM of Burlingham St. Peter.
II] Jane Browne m THOMAS PRICE (1599-1685) later abp of Cashel
III] Dau
IV] Dau
V] Ellen or Eliner Browne
Issue of I] THOMAS BROWNE
a] EDWARD BROWNE (1644 Norwich-28 Aug 1708 bur Northfleet, Kent) Sir MD; ed.
Norwich grammer & Triniry College, Cambridge; of Salisbury Court, Fleet
Street; well traveled; Fellow, treasurer (1694-1704) and President (1704-08) of
College of Physicans; King Charles II's physicians; m 1672 Henrietta Susan
(-1712) d of Dr CHRISTOPHER TERNE
b] THOMAS BROWNE (c1644 - c1667) Resided in France then, in 1664 joined
Navy
c] Anne m 1669, HENRY FAIRFAX of Hurst, Berks and nephew of Sir THOMAS 1Vt
FAIRFAX (Frances their d&h m DAVID ERSKINE Er of BUCHAN, but CP names her
mother as Frances)
d] Elizabeth m <1682 Capt GEORGE LYTTLETON and settled in Guernsey.
e] Frances (-1682 unm)
f] Mary Browne (-1676)
+4 or 5 other issue all -<1684
Issue of a] EDWARD BROWNE
THOMAS (1672 London bap 21 Jan 1672/3 - 1710 fall from horse) Only son; MD;
Ed Trinity College, Cambridge m 1698 cousin Alethea d of HENRY FAIRFAX
and
3 daughters bur in Northfleet, one Susanna (-1694) m ARTHUR MOORE
and
+7 issue died young
Regards,
Adrian

maria emma escobar

Re: Linajes Nobiliarios de León y Castilla, siglos IX-XIII

Legg inn av maria emma escobar » 02 nov 2005 22:16:01

No. Who married Fernando Pérez de Traba was Teresa Alfonso, daughter of Alfonso VI, when she was a widow of enrique of Borgoña, and they: Fernando and Teresa Alfonso had a daughter: Teresa Pérez de Traba.

A daughter of Teresa Alfonso and Enrique of Borgoña: Urraca Enríquez married the oldest brother of Fernando Pérez de Trava: Bermudo Pérez.

Then, two brother married: one the mother and other the daughter






---------------------------------

Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 22:32:01

In a message dated 11/2/05 10:08:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< There were two cases remaining of the three you had given, Poole the
younger and Stafford.

You have not explained what was different in the Poole arms, >>

Did you dispose of my case for Henry Courtenay (1498-1539), Marquis of Exeter?
His shield is given as
1st) a odd hodgepodge of England and France, I really don't know how to
describe it
2nd and 3rd ) His father's 1st quarter, being three red circles on a gold
background
4th) His father's 2nd quarter, being a blue, standing, lion? on a gold
background


Next we come to Edward Stafford (1478-1521), Duke of Buckingham
His shield is given as
1st and 4th) divided into four quarters as sub1st and 4th France, sub2nd and
3rd England, all in a silver border
2nd and 3rd) a red, upside-down chevron on a gold background

This 2nd and 3rd quarter is the identical, full-shield, symbol of his
great-great-grandfather, Edmund, Earl of Stafford, so I'm assuming this is "Stafford".

In this work, it's hard to find examples that meet your exacting criteria of
"English" and "non-royal" since it's mostly a survey of European Royalty.
However they do point out, that there were so many people doing whatever they
wanted with their shields, that an office was created and enforced to standardize
the "rules", but that this started in the 14th and 15th centuries and
"gradually" took this power.

Will

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 22:33:02

In a message dated 11/2/05 10:08:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Shall I produce a quote from Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry",
1954 edition, p. 548 [the '_' signs indicate his italics and the bit
in brackets is Fox-Davies'] :

"Given your pedigree--the first quartering _must_ be _the pronominal
coat_ (I am here presuming no change of name or arms has occurred),
which is the coat of arms of the strict male line of descent." >>

And in response at least one quote was placed on this thread which you
ignored which said these rules are *modern* not medieval :)

Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 22:51:57

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/2/05 10:08:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Shall I produce a quote from Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry",
1954 edition, p. 548 [the '_' signs indicate his italics and the bit
in brackets is Fox-Davies'] :

"Given your pedigree--the first quartering _must_ be _the pronominal
coat_ (I am here presuming no change of name or arms has occurred),
which is the coat of arms of the strict male line of descent."

And in response at least one quote was placed on this thread which you
ignored which said these rules are *modern* not medieval :)

All I ever said on this was that I had never seen any achievement that
did not start with the personal arms. I have also said that such a
rule, like all heraldic rules, cannot be universally applied. What is
the problem with either of these two statements?

How many angels dance on the point of a needle?

Or is it not time to go to bed on this one?

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

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 23:19:02

In a message dated 11/2/05 2:08:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< All I ever said on this was that I had never seen any achievement that
did not start with the personal arms. I have also said that such a
rule, like all heraldic rules, cannot be universally applied. What is
the problem with either of these two statements? >>

That you believe this rule ever existed in medieval times ?
And without any source to back up your statement whatsoever ?
And with sources that contradict it, and that say, or imply, basically, that
there were no rules.

That would be a starting point.

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 23:29:37

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

Next we come to Edward Stafford (1478-1521), Duke of Buckingham
His shield is given as
1st and 4th) divided into four quarters as sub1st and 4th France, sub2nd and
3rd England, all in a silver border
2nd and 3rd) a red, upside-down chevron on a gold background

This 2nd and 3rd quarter is the identical, full-shield, symbol of his
great-great-grandfather, Edmund, Earl of Stafford, so I'm assuming this is "Stafford".


Indeed, two and three are the patrinominal arms for Stafford, viz or, a
chevron gules, as depicted on Table 6 of Louda and Maclagan. (NB the
chevron is not inverted).

Quarters one and four are properly an impartible quartered coat or i
and iv France (modern) and ii and iii England, within the bordure used
by Thomas of Woodstock, younger son of Edward III (see Fox-Davies, p
418, including an illustration; this bordure was argent, without
further addition, as illustrated at Table 3 of Louda & Maclagan. The
Duke of Buckingham was entitled to this quarter because his great-great
grandfather, Edmund, Earl of Stafford (d 1403) married Anne, the
daughter and heiress of Thomas of Woodstock. Because of the now-long
obsolete practice of giving the Royal Arms place of honour in a
quartered arrangement, Thomas of Woodstock's arms are shown before
those of Stafford.

Again, because this is an example involving the Royal Arms, which have
always been accorded special heraldic treatment in all sorts of ways,
this is not necessarily a good example of the displacement of
pronominal arms. There are other examples in Louda & Maclagan which
are also problematic, because of the connection to royalty (for
instance, Henry VII's father Edmund Tudor dropped his pronominal arms
and used a bordured version of the English Royal Arms, despite the fact
that he was not descended from the English Royal Family, but 'only' the
son of Catherine de Valois, the Dowager Queen (widow of Henry V).
Blount and Maddison, however, are good examples of early English
pronominal arms being displaced. The Frevilles are another good
example - the Shelford and Tamworth branches used totally different
arms, because the latter decided to change from the original pronominal
coat.

MA-R

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 nov 2005 00:58:13

In message of 2 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/2/05 2:08:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

All I ever said on this was that I had never seen any achievement
that did not start with the personal arms. I have also said that
such a rule, like all heraldic rules, cannot be universally applied.
What is the problem with either of these two statements?

That you believe this rule ever existed in medieval times ?
And without any source to back up your statement whatsoever ?
And with sources that contradict it, and that say, or imply,
basically, that there were no rules.


It seems to have been practised in the volumes of the visitations where
they show a quartered achievement, and I do happen to have 32 of the
Harlein volumes plus a few others (mostly on CDROMs I hasten to add).
Again, I am not conscious of any that do not do so. Currently I am
going through for the first time the Dugdale's visitation of Lancashire
and I have noted that the rule appears to be followed in all such
cases. I have seen the same practice in the 1552 and 1612 Essex
visitations (no arms in the 1558 one); same in the combined 1530 and
1633 Sussex one; and in the 1532 Berkshire one. I think these will do.

This is way off topic. Can we not now call a halt to it?

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

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2005 01:13:01

In a message dated 11/2/05 4:08:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< I have seen the same practice in the 1552 and 1612 Essex
visitations (no arms in the 1558 one); same in the combined 1530 and
1633 Sussex one; and in the 1532 Berkshire one. I think these will do. >>

These are exceedingly late to declare that this was an iron-clad-rule
throughout the entire medieval period.
Will Johnson

butlergrt

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av butlergrt » 03 nov 2005 01:36:09

Good Evening,
Here! Here! I agree, let this issue be put to bed and get on with some
really good stuff that started this whole discussion. The Investigation of
what is most important, whom or what is/are in the tombs was the
conjecture and to what "issue" small pun intended, it lead to. If not, let
us have the same discourse on some other line/s with fine data being
brought forth as has been done on this particular subject matter. We will
never really know what the reasoning is/was as to why the shields were
done in that fashion, must understand they can be used only as a guide, a
rough road map, and nor does it matter at this point, St. Martin's most
definitely is not going to change them to suit our tastes or desire for
rules 'then' or 'now',(a tad bit of humor) I did learn alot though!! Jolly
good fun!
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 nov 2005 02:03:33

In message of 3 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/2/05 4:08:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I have seen the same practice in the 1552 and 1612 Essex
visitations (no arms in the 1558 one); same in the combined 1530 and
1633 Sussex one; and in the 1532 Berkshire one. I think these will do.

These are exceedingly late to declare that this was an iron-clad-rule
throughout the entire medieval period.

Heraldry did not even start until around 1150!

And this practice was evident in official documents (visitations) by
1530, so it must have been around for a while before that. The problem
is that the visitations did not start until, at the earliest, 1480. The
various and earlier rolls of arms only give single, personal arms, not
quarterings.

And I deny that I ever stated that anything was an iron-clad rule let
alone throughout the medieval period. Please read where I wrote (a)
that I had not seen any different practice (which does not assert that
all cases are the same) and (b) that all heraldic rules had exceptions.

Finally I am well aware that heraldic practices developed as the
centuries rolled by: quartering did not even start until, per
Fox-Davies, around 1272 and in Spain and then was limited in England to
a maximum of four quarters until around 1500.

Is it not time to stop this off-topic exchange?

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Linajes Nobiliarios de León y Castilla, siglos IX-XIII

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 03 nov 2005 07:08:10

maria emma escobar wrote:
No. Who married Fernando Pérez de Traba was Teresa Alfonso, daughter of Alfonso VI, when she was a widow of enrique of Borgoña, and they: Fernando and Teresa Alfonso had a daughter: Teresa Pérez de Traba.


Is there contemporary documentary evidence that Teresa Fernandez was
daughter of Teresa Alfonso? I know that traditionally this was thought
to have been the case, but there is the chronology. What led Rashid
(and Ruben Garcia Alvarez before him) to question this was that Teresa F
is said to have died in childbirth 50 years after Teresa A died. This
would be _quite_ unusual.

taf

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2005 08:08:02

In a message dated 11/2/2005 9:15:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

These are exceedingly late to declare that this was an iron-clad-rule
throughout the entire medieval period.

Heraldry did not even start until around 1150!

And this practice was evident in official documents (visitations) by
1530


Tim, each post you've said "can't we stop" and yet you post. Isn't that a
little peculiar behaviour?

As far as the above quote. From 1150 to 1530 is quite a long period of time
to just "gloss over" by saying something like "if it was that way in 1530 it
must have been that way for the whole time period!". Don't you think?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 nov 2005 09:44:43

In message of 3 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Unfortunately the quoting was left out so that it was unclear who was
writing what.

In a message dated 11/2/2005 9:15:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:


The next sentence was not written by me but by WJ:

These are exceedingly late to declare that this was an
iron-clad-rule throughout the entire medieval period.

The next two sentences were written by me:

Heraldry did not even start until around 1150!

And this practice was evident in official documents (visitations) by
1530

The next sentence was written by WJ

Tim, each post you've said "can't we stop" and yet you post. Isn't
that a little peculiar behaviour?

Because you have not agreed to stop and continue to say I have said
things I have not said.

The next sentence was written by WJ:

As far as the above quote. From 1150 to 1530 is quite a long period
of time to just "gloss over" by saying something like "if it was
that way in 1530 it must have been that way for the whole time
period!". Don't you think?

I did not say that. Please read what I wrote.

You have even cut out where I denied saying that there were iron-clad
rules. And restating your assertion that I had said there were
iron-clad rules gives the impression that I had not contradicted it and
therefore I accepted it as true. Please be fair.

Remember that the statement you originally picked on was to the effect
that I had not seen any achievements of arms with other than the
personal arms in the first quarter. As of that moment in time that was
true and it remains that it was (then) a true statement. It was a
carefully made statement because I knew, and have regularly repeated,
that there were no universally followed rules in heraldry. The only
thing we have achieved, thanks to Nat Taylor's clear discovery of the
Blount achievement a copy of which I have found here, is that I can now
say only that the overwhelming majority of acheivements that I have seen
have the personal arms in the first quarter; this is true and will
remain true. There is nothing more that can be said. Do you not agree?

Do you not think it is time to stop? This is getting very boring.

(And if you do agree to stop, I can even give some information that
should make you laugh.)

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

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 03 nov 2005 11:09:02

Hello Adrian,

A little more detail for Cicely Brown:

Issue of 1] THOMAS BROWNE

i) FRANCIS BROWNE (1638-1638)
ii) THOMAS BROWNE (1639 - 1702 buried St Mary's, Upton) m Cicely (-1661
childbirth) d of WILLIAM GLEGG, of Gayton and left Cicely Browne, (1661-1702
buried St Mary's, Upton)
<<

All from Heswall, St. Peter (ancient parish church for Gayton)

Baptism:
Glegge, Cicilie baptised 23/5/1624, father: William Glegge, residence Gayton

Baptism:
Browne, Cicilia baptised 18/3/1662, father: Thomas Browne, residence Upton, additional information: Et eodem die cum matre eius sepulta fuit

Burial:
Browne, Cicilia buried 18/3/1662 wife of Thomas Browne, Gent., Upton, Da. to Wm. Glegge of Geaton, Esqr. Deseaced, Child Birth.

Records from:
http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/

Regards, Yvonne

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2005 12:36:54

Well done, Adrian. Thanks for sharing.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: First quarter of achievement of arms was The 3 Walter Gr

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2005 16:33:02

In a message dated 11/3/2005 1:16:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

As of that moment in time that was
true and it remains that it was (then) a true statement


A, The quoting or lack thereof is a function of the email system I was using
at the time.
Second, I see now that you have *conceded* !!!! from the above statement.
And on the third hand, stop saying "let's stop" and then posting again

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Was Gov. William Shirley of Mass. a descendant of Jane (

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 nov 2005 18:41:02

Descendant of Anthony and Barbara (Walsingham) Shirley?

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... irley1.htm

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 nov 2005 20:00:02

Adrian, do you have any clearer picture today of the identity of
Nicholas Browne, who was the father of Frances Browne who married
Richard Washington at St. Martin-in-the-Fields in 1627?

DSH

John Brandon

Re: Was Gov. William Shirley of Mass. a descendant of Jane (

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 nov 2005 20:00:57

Descendant of Anthony and Barbara (Walsingham) Shirley?

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... irley1.htm

Yep, I think. Gov. Shirley's line was through a Thomas Shirley who
married Elizabeth Stapley.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Was Gov. William Shirley of Mass. a descendant of Jane (

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 nov 2005 20:24:02

"Yep, I think. Gov. Shirley's line was through a Thomas Shirley who
married Elizabeth Stapley."

This would add yet another strand to the intricate and seemingly
endlessly criss-crossing connections (largely London, Kent, and Sussex)
of the Shirley-West-Argall-Percy-Croshaw-Pelham, etc.etc., genealogical
web in colonial America.


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

John P. Ravilious

Re: London Wine Vintage 1427

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 08 nov 2005 13:02:26

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that interesting item.

It now appears that wine drinkers should be sophisticated, but
not their wine.

Cheers,

John


paul bulkley wrote:
The Plea and Memoranda Rolls - City of London -
records September 7th 1427 the following:


An inquest of office before the mayor and aldermen by
oath of Geoffrey Bokeler and others on the panel who
said that Gerard Galganet, alien, on 10 July 1427 in
the parish of St Margaret Patyns mixed 6 casks of old
wine of La Rochelle, pale in colour and defective in
taste, with new Spanish wine, and coloured, composed,
and sophisticated them with wine cooked and coloured
to give them a pleasant appearance and delectable
taste, and put the wine thus mixed into 13 butts,
which had been smeared and lined with divers gums and
resins (cum diversis gummis et Rasis ---- unctis et
linitis) so as to give it the taste and likeness of
good Romeney wine, and offered it for sale as such, in
deception of the king's people and in contempt of the
good ordinances of the city. And further the jurors
said that the said Gerard was a common sophisticator,
counterfeiter and seller of such wines.

They also presented the same Gerard for having on 20
July sophisticated 10 casks of unsound La Rochelle
wine, which he placed in one butt and 20 hogsheads,
and a certain Dominicus de Venire, alien, for having
on 10 March at the quay of Ralph Gresvale, packer,
sophisticated 8 casks of old, sour-sweet (acredulcium)
Spanish wine, defective in taste and colour and
unsound, which he placed in 16 casks and exposed for
sale as good Romeney.

This chap probably would make a fortune in Napa
Valley!

It is interesting to note that some foreign
authorities claimed that the British were
unsophisticated drunken beer drinkers. Those claims
would appear not to apply to individuals in London
who were able to detect the difference between a good
and a bad wine.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2005 18:58:01

In a message dated 11/8/2005 5:14:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

, Sir Walter would have been some 30 years older than
his second wife.


What are you basing your guess on the age of Agnes on ?
Will Johnson

jeffchip9

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 09 nov 2005 01:25:42

Folks, I don't know what to tell you here. According to The Oxford
Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
charge, as it was in this case. I am not going to argue over the
Boteler arms, except to note that the Boteler in question was an
heraldic heiress, and her descendants were perfectly in their rights to
quarter her arms. She brought the barony of Wem to the Ferrers family
as shown by CP. As for the lozenge, even my elderly mother was able to
pick out the lozenge without my help.

Since Agnes Constable's parents married (according to Richardson) ca.
1442, by any calculation she was decades younger than her putative
husband. I'm not saying that such marriages never took place, just
that it was something I filed away as another reason to take a hard
look at this line, along with the lousy chronology and lack of
documentation. Where is the proof that Rhys Griffith was the son of
John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt?

As for the pedigree, I have a herald's visitation which shows that John
of Gaunt's second wife was Katherine Swynford. I am not going to lose
sleep over a discrepancy on a family pedigree roll. Ther heraldic
evidence is clear in this case. There really isn't anything to argue
about. The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that the woman is
unmarried. Period. This is completlely supported by the two books on
heraldry I have (the above, plus Slater's "The Complete Book of
Heraldry" pp. 112-3, which discusses the lozenge, and gives an example
of a granddaughter of Edward I). The reason this error happened in the
first place is because there were three Walter Griffith's in succeeding
generations. This kind of thing happens all the time. I have "broken"
this line and come up with a better one, at least in terms of its royal
connections.

I don't think Doug mentioned the fact that the Neville arms as
discussed in the Hailwood article are different than the drawing shown
in the 1604 scroll. I think the reason is that the paint that was on
them has long since faded away. The reason I sent the material to Doug
was that I was hoping somebody would straighten out what (for the
Sancha de Ayala descent alone) is an interesting family.

Doug, I am sorry that you stand by your trancription. I am not going
to argue about it. I will say this, though, and this comes from
someone who likes your books: you have made 3 errors in my lines:
Browne, Willoughby, and the Katherine Carter line (which strictly
speaking, isn't mine, but she was a sister of my ancestor; your
continuing support of this line in spite of the evidence has brought
unfair ridicule on the whole Diana Skpwith line).

What are you looking at? The Beaufort/Griffith marriage indenture
specifically states that the marriage is to be solemnized on 6 Nov
1435.

I do not agree with your transcription; I can make out the word "Mary."
Jane Neville's mother was Mary Ferrers, so I think my rendering makes
perfect sense. As for the rest of it, so what? It doesn't support
your case at all. Didn't you just get through telling me you didn't
know when Griffith and Neville got married? It shows that Jane Neville
was capable of having children. The reason Jane Neville has the
lozenge on her shield is because she was a widow. Therefore her
husband could not marry Agnes Constable. Why do you have a problem
with that?

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 02:40:02

In a message dated 11/8/05 4:29:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Folks, I don't know what to tell you here. According to The Oxford
Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
charge, as it was in this case. I am not going to argue over the
Boteler arms, except to note that the Boteler in question was an
heraldic heiress, and her descendants were perfectly in their rights to
quarter her arms. She brought the barony of Wem to the Ferrers family
as shown by CP. As for the lozenge, even my elderly mother was able to
pick out the lozenge without my help.>>

After going over this three dozen times you still don't get it. A modern
definition has *nothing* whatsoever to do with what they might have done in 1480.
Please quote a source *from* the medieval period that backs up your claim of
what is or isn't a lozenge and what such a thing does or does not mean.

<< Since Agnes Constable's parents married (according to Richardson) ca.
1442, by any calculation she was decades younger than her putative
husband. I'm not saying that such marriages never took place, just
that it was something I filed away as another reason to take a hard
look at this line, along with the lousy chronology and lack of
documentation. Where is the proof that Rhys Griffith was the son of
John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt? >>

Wrong. By my estimate Sir Walter was born 1420/30. If Agnes was born just
after her parent's marriage, they could have been as little as 12 years apart.

You are focused on proving your case, your argument from heraldry is not
convincing. If you re-present your case without the dogmatic focus you might win
a few more adherents. Do you hear anyone agreeing with you? Do you think
maybe that might imply anything ?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Further identification of William Whorwood, etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 03:00:02

In trying to find documents on Margaret Zouche and Rhys etc I happened to
fall on some more documents related to her descendent Frances Griffith who
married Matthew Boynton.

It helped me add a few dates to these people, so I'll share what I found.

Frances Griffith married Matthew Boynton abt 27 Sep 1613
That was a date of a settlement or contract I found in A2A but I didn't copy
it :( Sorry.

Frances was the dau of Sir Henry Griffith, Knt in 1603 and his wife Elizabeth
Throckmorton

Sir Henry (1558-1620) "of Wichnore" [sic], "Staffordshire"
son of Walter Griffith (d 1574)
married 1583/4 Elizabeth Throckmorton dau of Thomas Throckmorton, Esq "of
Morehall" (d 13 Mar 1614/5) and his wife Margaret Whorwood

Sir Henry's eldest son Walter died v.p.
the second [or third?] son Sir Henry Griffith, Knt in 1627 was born in 1603
and I believe was the inheritor of Burton Agnes when his father died in 1620.
This son apparently died without issue as next heir was the son of his sister
Frances who had married Matthew Boynton.

Margaret Whorwood was the dau of William Whorwood and his wife Margaret
Brooke. This Margaret Brooke died 1589 "aged 80" and was the dau of "Richard
Brooke, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer" (Does anyone have dates on this Richard
?)

After Margaret Brooke's first husband died (date unknown to me) she married
William Sheldon of Beoley, eldest son of Ralph Sheldon "Esq of Aberton" (or
also called of Beoley) and his wife Philippa Heath dau of Baldwin.

This William Sheldon had first been married with Mary Willington dau of
William Willington, Esq of Warwick "of Barcheston" and his wife Anne Middlemore"
Mary Willington died 25 Jan 1553.

It's interesting that William Sheldon and Margaret Brooke could not have
married before 1553 and Margaret was then 44/5 and yet they had another child (per
the Visitations of Worcester, 1569, online at http://www.ancestry.com, British
subscriptions).

I would appreciate any comments, esp anything useful for pinning more exact
dates on the Willington family.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 03:45:02

Dear Will,
Jeff can`t be right because some evidence appears to disagree
with his claim ? I for One am not totally convinced that He is wrong. You say
that this lozenge being an unmarried woman (spinster/ widow) is only a modern
heraldic idea, but when it comes to heraldry, how modern is modern ? I don`t
know. We know that Rhys II ap Griffith was born 1325- died 1380. Douglas
estimates that his son Thomas was born in 1376, but We appear not to have an exact
marriage date for Rhys II and Margaret la Zouche of Haryngworth. We know it
preceded 1380 but by how many years ? Admittedly Margaret`s death in 1430 has to
be taken into account. She survived Rhys II by 50 years, so perhaps She
married him 1370 / 5 as Douglas believes, but it could be a couple years earlier
and she 20 or less at this marriage. If John is son of Thomas and Anne his
birthdate is perhaps 1390-95. He died in 1471. Next We have Walter born between
1415 and 1430- died ? 1481 married ? 1435 indenture Joan / Jane Neville by 1457,
who was either widow? or deceased by 1472 when Agnes Constable say 1445?-
died 1505 who married 1st Walter Griffith and 2nd Gervase Clifton by whom Walter
Griffith say 1473- died 1531 and a daughter Agnes. This Walter in a tablet
dated 1511 says his father had previously married a Johanna and was son of John
and Catherine (Tyrwhitt) Griffith. very convincing stuff. Who would disavow a
grandmother with royal connections? Then again, Henry`s headsman was getting
a workout at that time so You might downplay it if You could.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Does anyone know of any reference to any Walter or Rhys Griffith as "
King`s Kinsman'

jeffchip9

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 09 nov 2005 04:18:22

Will, you don't understand what I'm saying. I specifically noted an
example from the 1300s concerning a lozenge (e.g. the granddaughter of
Edward I) to answer your objection. I think you fall into a segment
of genealogist who seems to think that heraldic customs were invented
by the College of Arms. What the college did was take customs and
traditions that had been observed (as the example I quoted shows) for a
long time and codify them. Of course there were people who ignored
them; you did not offer an example of any. Frankly, what are you
basing your asserition that Sir Walter Griffith was b. ca. 1420/30 on?
Where is that estimate from? His parents? Where is the evidence that
this marriage (which by the way, Doug Richardson transcribed and
apparently forgot the date of solemnization of) was a child marriage?
There is nothing in the document to suggest that. In other words, I'm
challenging you to produce some evidence that your argument is correct.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?
A lozenge is a "shape," specifically a diamond shape. In heraldry it
has never meant anything but the fact that the woman in question was
single, either a spinster or a widow. The lozenge displays her arms.
A coat can itself be diamond shaped, or it can be a charge on the coat.
This fact is not going to change no matter what anybody says. That's
the way it is. I am concerned that you would make a couple of
unsubstantiated statements yourself and apparently tell me to take them
seriously. Part of the problem here is that you are not looking at the
same thing that Douglas Richardson and I are. You are reading
Hailwood's description of these arms. We are looking at a drawing made
in 1604.
I am not crazy about genealogical arguments that take terms or
situations which have a usual and customary meaning and ascribe to them
some other meaning, which just happens to support an argument we're
making and usually without any proof that it should mean what we want
it to. The point I'm getting at is that the only use for the shape
I've described ever (and there are a couple of ways it can be
displayed; I have pictures of them) is to show that the woman is either
widowed or a spinster, i.e. in a single state. If you have a problem
with it take it up with a herald, don't yell at me.
However, in order to correct the erroneous impression you've made, I
want to quote from "The Complete Book Of Heraldry," by Stephen Slater
(Lorenz Books, 2002) pp. 112-113:

"The Lozenge
A shield, being an article of warfare, was traditionally associated
with men, and as such it was not considered appropriate for women.
From the late medieval period, a diamond -shaped device--the
lozenge--came into use for the armigerous lady although, like so much

in heraldry, just when the diamond was first used in this way is not
clear. A remarkable English seal has survived from around 1347 for
Joan, daughter of Henrie Count de Barre, widow of John de Warenne, Earl
of Surrey. Included in the seal's complex design are five tiny
lozenges; the central lozenge bears the arms of Warenne, the lozenges
in the flanks, of de Barre, and those above and below the arms of
England--Countess Joan's mother was Eleanor, daughter of King Edward I
of England....
By the 15th century the diamond or lozenge had become the normal
platform for the display of the single woman's arms in Britain, France
and the Low Countries, and so it continues to this day, the somewhat
harsh shape being softened at times into the oval. However, whereas
the oval has sometimes been used by men, the lozenge seems an entirely
female device."

I have to defer to these people; they're experts in the field, and I
should note that the other heraldry book I have "The Oxford Guide" says
the same thing. I like the Slater book because it has a better index
and it is easier to find things.

For the reasons I've discussed in my posts, Sir Walter Griffith,
husband of Jane Neville, died before she did and thus could not
possiblly have married Agnes Constable.

Jeff Chipman

Douglas Richardson

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 nov 2005 07:51:47

Dear James ~

Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband, William Walsall, is on record as being
Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire several times in the period,
1377 to 1407 [see Roskell, House of Parliament, 4 (1992): 753]. As a
general rule, men were about 40 when they first served as sheriff.
This provides us a rough estimated birthdate for William Walsall of
circa 1347. In correct, Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband was about 20
years younger than her first husband, Sir Rhys ap Griffith, who was
born in 1325.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will,
Jeff can`t be right because some evidence appears to disagree
with his claim ? I for One am not totally convinced that He is wrong. You say
that this lozenge being an unmarried woman (spinster/ widow) is only a modern
heraldic idea, but when it comes to heraldry, how modern is modern ? I don`t
know. We know that Rhys II ap Griffith was born 1325- died 1380. Douglas
estimates that his son Thomas was born in 1376, but We appear not to have an exact
marriage date for Rhys II and Margaret la Zouche of Haryngworth. We know it
preceded 1380 but by how many years ? Admittedly Margaret`s death in 1430 has to
be taken into account. She survived Rhys II by 50 years, so perhaps She
married him 1370 / 5 as Douglas believes, but it could be a couple years earlier
and she 20 or less at this marriage. If John is son of Thomas and Anne his
birthdate is perhaps 1390-95. He died in 1471. Next We have Walter born between
1415 and 1430- died ? 1481 married ? 1435 indenture Joan / Jane Neville by 1457,
who was either widow? or deceased by 1472 when Agnes Constable say 1445?-
died 1505 who married 1st Walter Griffith and 2nd Gervase Clifton by whom Walter
Griffith say 1473- died 1531 and a daughter Agnes. This Walter in a tablet
dated 1511 says his father had previously married a Johanna and was son of John
and Catherine (Tyrwhitt) Griffith. very convincing stuff. Who would disavow a
grandmother with royal connections? Then again, Henry`s headsman was getting
a workout at that time so You might downplay it if You could.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Does anyone know of any reference to any Walter or Rhys Griffith as "
King`s Kinsman'

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 07:56:02

In a message dated 11/8/05 6:31:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< She survived Rhys II by 50 years, so perhaps She
married him 1370 / 5 as Douglas believes, but it could be a couple years
earlier
and she 20 or less at this marriage. If John is son of Thomas and Anne his
birthdate is perhaps 1390-95. He died in 1471. Next We have Walter born
between
1415 and 1430- died ? >>

If we fix Thomas Griffith's birthyear at 1377 then his son John could have
been born as early as 1394. There is no tight restriction on his mother Anne
Blount who's father died 21 Jul 1403 at Shrewsbury.

The right restriction on the top comes in from John's son Walter who has
marriage document in 1435. If we allow him to be at least five, then his father
has an upper bound date of 1413, allowing John to be at least 17 at the birth
of his son Walter.

So Sir John Griffith of Wychnor has a birth range of 1394/1413 while his son
Walter gets the range 1411/30

I've already worked out the chronology in my database, and with just what
we've had so far on this thread there is no problem with Walter having two wives,
just as there is none with him having one.

We need more documents. And maybe we should question the birthyear of Thomas
Griffith at 1377

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 07:56:02

In a message dated 11/8/05 6:31:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< Jeff can`t be right because some evidence appears to disagree
with his claim ? I for One am not totally convinced that He is wrong. You
say
that this lozenge being an unmarried woman (spinster/ widow) is only a
modern
heraldic idea, but when it comes to heraldry, how modern is modern ? I don`t
know. >>

1) I'm not saying "[he] can't be right". I'm saying his argument is not
convincing. That makes me agnostic on the argument.
2) I did not say the "... lozenge being an unmarried woman was a modern
idea". What I said, was an argument on medieval usage, quoting as authority a
*modern* dictionary, is not a valid argument. Esp. as we have quotes that
specifically state, that medieval usage did *not* conform to the rules that we might
wish.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 nov 2005 08:14:11

Dear Jeff ~

In an earlier post, you wrote the following:

"The marriage of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville is well-proved by a
marriage indenture dated 23 Sep 1435 between Sir John Griffith, father
of Walter Griffith, who is his son and heir, and Joan, countess of
Westmorland (Joan Beaufort), grandmother of Jane Neville;
the marriage to take place on 6 Nov 1435." END OF QUOTE.

I can't see that you provided us a reference for the indenture document
you cited for the marriage. When time permits, can you post a full
transcript of this item, along with its source? Also, I'm curious to
know if this indenture is the same document as the defeasance bond
involving this marriage which is mentioned in the A2A Catalogue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 08:21:23

jeffchip9 schrieb:

Folks, I don't know what to tell you here. According to The Oxford
Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
charge, as it was in this case.

Thanks Jeff. Unfortunately you have misinterpreted this. Sometimes,
indeed, the lozenge is used as a charge; that is to say, it appears as
an element within a coat of arms. But when it appears as a charge, it
has no particular significance: it is just part of the design, in the
same way that a cross might be, or a cup, or a wheel etc etc.

Occasionally charges do have sigificance: e.g. the use of a label on
the arms to indicate an elderst son during his father's lifetime; the
use of 'cadency' marks. In this case, though, it doesn't seem that
this is the case (although if someone could provide me with a blazon of
the arms so I could tell where the lozenge is displayed, perhaps we
could be more certain).

Where the lozenge *does* have significance is when it is used "in place
of the shield" to "display the arms of a spinster of widow". In the
instant case, it is not so used, because the arms in question appear
within a shield.

We cannot conclude that the arms displayed on the Burton Agnes tomb are
those of a widow or spinster.

Kind regards

Michael

Douglas Richardson

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 nov 2005 09:00:30

My comments are interspersed below. DR

jeffchip9 wrote:

I do not agree with your transcription; I can make out the word "Mary."

I've had a lot of experience reading the Elizabethan script, including
documents which are faint or stained. The document you provided me is
quite legible and written in a good hand. There is no word Mary in the
caption which accompanies the drawing of the Griffith tomb at Burton
Agnes. The word you are reading as Mary is "w'ch" [which]. The first
letter "w" is clearly formed. It is the same exact letter that
commences the word "wife." It is not in any sense a capital M. The
same letter "w" also precedes the word "w'th" [i.e., with] twice
elsewhere in the text. In all four instances, the letter "w" is
clearly legible. The caption states that Sir Walter and his wife
Joane had a son and daughter who "died in there tender yeres." The
names of the two children are not stated.

As for Sir Walter Griffith, the Griffith pedigree you supplied me with
the drawing states the following:

"Sir Walter Griffith of Anneys Burtone in Yorkshire knight died in the
Twentye one Yeare of King Edward ye 4 in ye yeare of Christ 1481 on ye
9 of August."

This death date agrees perfectly with the death date for Sir Walter
Griffith which is given in the other Griffith pedigree published in
Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64, namely the vigil of St. Laurence
Anno 1481, which is August 9, 1481.

The pedigree you provided with the drawing of the tomb states that Sir
Walter Griffith married (1st) Jane Neville and (2nd) Agnes Constable.
The order of the marriages agrees perfectly with the Griffith pedigree
published in Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64.

As for the rest of it, so what? It doesn't support your case at all.

I merely stated my opinion that Sir Walter Griffith married both
Joan/Jane Neville and Agnes Constable. That is all. I wasn't trying
to make a "case."

Jeff Chipman

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

jeffchip9

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 09 nov 2005 18:46:19

This is it. I have posted relevant quotes from two books on heraldry.
"The Oxford Guide" was written by a herald and the Fitzalan Pursivant
Extrordinary. These people are experts and their discussion of the
lozenge makes it easy to understand. Jane Neville did not invent the
lozenge, she simply followed a custom that had been observed for at
least 100 years. It is an absolute genealogical fact that her husband
died before she did, and therefore could not have married Agnes
Constable. The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that a woman
is single, either a spinster or a widow and it is still in use today.
This is not some esoteric practice. Now we have people saying that her
husband could have been born anywhere between 1411 and 1430. I say he
was born ca. 1415. A few years one way or the other is not going to
make much difference. We know that Jane's brother John was born in
1418, so that gives us a loose idea of what we're working with here.
Again, a few years isn't going to sink the ship.
The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations. I
have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths. Walter Griffith I
beget Walter II who beget Walter III, which is proven by the chain of
holding the manor.
This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else. I am stating a
genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
situation again. We should bear in mind that the people in the books
that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
accounting.
Doug, of course you are trying to make a case. In this instance you
are wrong. Nitpicking with my transcription (which I think is better
than yours) isn't going to change that. It's not Elizabethan, it's
Stuart, although very early Stuart (James I having become king in
1603). I urge you and others who seem to have difficulty understanding
the heraldic evidence in this situation consult some reliable
reference. Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
Agnes Constable because he was dead. I am not an expert in either
medieval genealogy or heraldry, but as a genealogist for many years I
know when I don't know, and find answers to my questions using the best
material I can. What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
it. Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
research this topic.

As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 19:00:39

jeffchip9 wrote:
This is it. I have posted relevant quotes from two books on heraldry.
"The Oxford Guide" was written by a herald and the Fitzalan Pursivant
Extrordinary. These people are experts and their discussion of the
lozenge makes it easy to understand.

Sorry, Jeff, but you have clearly misunderstood it. As explained, and
as made clear in your extract from "The Oxford Guide", with whose
author I am well acquainted, the lozenge is used to display the arms of
a widow or a spinster; it is not used as a charge to indicate this.

It is an absolute genealogical fact that her husband
died before she did

Whoa!

The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that a woman
is single, either a spinster or a widow and it is still in use today.

In place of the shield, not placed on the shield. The lozenge is used
(as the Oxford Guide states) as a symbol on shields, and as such has no
particular meaning. For instance, a lozenge features on the Montagu
arms - are you suggesting this means each member of the Montagu family
is several times a widow?

This is not some esoteric practice. Now we have people saying that her
husband could have been born anywhere between 1411 and 1430. I say he
was born ca. 1415. A few years one way or the other is not going to
make much difference. We know that Jane's brother John was born in
1418, so that gives us a loose idea of what we're working with here.
Again, a few years isn't going to sink the ship.
The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations. I
have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths.

With respect, you have not "proved it"; you have argued it. Some of
your evidence is misguided, and some of it is contradicted by other,
good evidence.

This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else. I am stating a
genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
situation again. We should bear in mind that the people in the books
that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
accounting.

Agreed. But unfortunately you are doing the opposite of what you state
is your intention when you miscontrue the evidence.

Doug, of course you are trying to make a case. In this instance you
are wrong. Nitpicking with my transcription (which I think is better
than yours) isn't going to change that. It's not Elizabethan, it's
Stuart, although very early Stuart (James I having become king in
1603). I urge you and others who seem to have difficulty understanding
the heraldic evidence in this situation consult some reliable
reference. Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
Agnes Constable because he was dead. I am not an expert in either
medieval genealogy or heraldry,

Clearly; but why won't you accept the expertise of those who might be
more knowledgeable than yourself? That, it seems to me, is the truly
blinkered position in this debate.

What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
it.

Agreed, but you have been given the opportunity to reassess your
misunderstanding. I hope you will do so.

Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
research this topic.

I have researched it, extensively, for many years - not just by reading
two "beginners' guides". Again, you are mistaken in your apprehension.
Perhaps you should do some further research, examining actual
instances relevant to the time period etc, if you are not prepared to
accept the advice of others. Can you quote one other actual instance
of a lozenge being displayed on a shield to indicate viduity or
spinsterhood?
As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.

Sorry Jeff, but I have to disagree, with the greatest of respect. In
making statements such as this you are perpetuating the bad genealogy
you purport to rail against.

Kind regards

Michael

Brad Verity

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 09 nov 2005 20:36:57

Dear Jeff,

I was glad when you said a few days ago that you were going to stick to
your guns because I thought that would lead to more evidence on the
Griffiths coming to light. More evidence did come to light - namely,
the 1511 tablet from the Burton Agnes church, transcribed in
'Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica', Volume 1.

But now sticking to your guns has led you to ignore this piece of
evidence and back into the area of heraldic interpretation. A few days
ago you were insistent that the heraldry on the tomb had to mean the
knight was the son of Jane Neville. Now that idea's gone, and you are
insisting that the heraldry on the tomb has to mean Jane Neville (at
least she's back in the tomb) survived her husband.

jeffchip9 wrote:

[snip]
The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations.

Yes - no one is saying otherwise.

I
have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths.

No you have not. You have insisted on this, in spite of mounting
evidence to the contrary.

Walter Griffith I
beget Walter II who beget Walter III, which is proven by the chain of
holding the manor.

You would actually need IPMs to prove the descent of the manor
possession. To date, you haven't produced any, though you now know
that one apparently existed, in some form, for Sir John Griffith (d.
1471).

This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else.

I never thought you were.

I am stating a
genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
situation again.

I hate to disillusion you, but the case is never closed - on any line
of descent - when it comes to medieval genealogy. New evidence
continually surfaces.

We should bear in mind that the people in the books
that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
accounting.

Everyone is trying to provide such an accurate accounting. In this
case, however, accuracy is not on your side - there were not three
Walter Griffiths.

[snip]
Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
Agnes Constable because he was dead.

This is a rather incredible statement. Jeff, you have the testimony of
the son of the entombed Sir Walter Griffith, per the tablet he
commissioned in 1511. The son states that his mother was Agnes
Constable (d. 1505), and that his father died in 1481 and is buried in
the tomb with his wife Jane. Further, that his father was the son in
turn of Sir John Griffith (d. 1471). Even further, he calls himself
the second Walter Griffith and his father the first Walter Griffith.
Some of these facts are backed up by independent evidence (Agnes's
will, Sir Walter's 1531 will, Rhys Griffith's 1494 IPM).

Sir Walter Griffith (d. 1531) would not have made a mistake in the
identities of his parents and grandparents. As eager as you are for a
descent from Edward III for your family, so would be Sir Walter, and he
would have gotten it correct if it had occured as you propose.

I am not an expert in either
medieval genealogy or heraldry, but as a genealogist for many years I
know when I don't know, and find answers to my questions using the best
material I can.

Great.

What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
it.

What I see is you completely ignoring the evidence of Sir Walter's
tablet.

Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
research this topic.

Yet you have not even acknowledged John Higgins, who did take the
trouble to research this topic and transcribe some very helpful
genealogical details on your Griffith ancestors.

As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.

I can't help but wonder, given your last statement here, just how many
other proposed (and published) lines of descent from Edward III and
Edward I would fall apart as this one does under close scrutiny. I'm
researching from the other direction - Edward I forward - and have not
yet reached the gateway ancestors to colonial America.

Cheers, -------------Brad

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 22:01:07

jeffchip9 schrieb:

I specifically noted an example from the 1300s concerning a lozenge
(e.g. the granddaughter of Edward I) to answer your objection... I want
to quote from "The Complete Book Of Heraldry," by Stephen Slater
(Lorenz Books, 2002) pp. 112-113:

A shield, being an article of warfare, was traditionally associated
with men, and as such it was not considered appropriate for women.
From the late medieval period, a diamond -shaped device--the
lozenge--came into use for the armigerous lady A remarkable English
seal has survived from around 1347 for Joan, daughter of Henrie Count de
Barre, widow of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey. Included in the seal's
complex design are five tiny lozenges; the central lozenge bears the arms
of Warenne, the lozenges in the flanks, of de Barre, and those above and
below the arms of England--Countess Joan's mother was Eleanor, daughter
of King Edward I of England....

Jeff, just to show that the example you quoted earlier doesn't show
what you think it shows, note the wording here:

"a shield was... not considered appropriate for women" so "the lozenge
came into use"

- i..e. as the vehicle for the display, as the shape on which the arms
were displayed instead of a shield.

"included in the seal's complex design are five tiny lozenges: the
central lozenge bears the arms of..."

- note each lozenge has the respective coats of arms displayed within
it - i.e. the lozenge is not displayed on the field of the arms as a
symbol, but rather, the arms are displayed on and within the lozenge.

This is quite different to your description of the heraldry on the
Burton Agnes tomb, of which you say "the lozenge was on the shield, not
the shape of the shield itself".

By the 15th century the diamond or lozenge had become the normal
platform for the display of the single woman's arms in Britain, France
and the Low Countries, and so it continues to this day,

Here's the nub of it: "the lozenge (is) the normal platform for the
display of the single woman's arms."

If you make a study of funereal or monumental heraldry you will find
many, many instances of the *arms* displayed a *lozenge* to indicate
this status; so far as any of the authorities with which I am familiar
is concerned, you won't find one which displays a *lozenge* on the
*arms* to convey this.

I hope this makes things a bit clearer. We're all here to learn!

Kind regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 22:06:45

Apologies - that was careless typing by me. I meant to write:

If you make a study of funereal or monumental heraldry you will find
many, many instances of the *arms* displayed ON a *lozenge* to indicate
this status; so far as any of the authorities with which I am familiar
is concerned, you won't find one which displays a *lozenge* on the
*arms* to convey this.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 22:45:02

In a message dated 11/8/05 10:59:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< William Walsall, is on record as being Sheriff of Shropshire and
Staffordshire several times in the period, 1377 to 1407 [see Roskell, House of
Parliament, 4 (1992): 753]. As a general rule, men were about 40 when they first
served as sheriff. This provides us a rough estimated birthdate for William
Walsall of circa 1347. >>

I doubt any such general rule existed. The most we can know is that William
was an adult by 1377, and "able-bodied" enough to still be Sheriff in 1407 so
probably not in his eighties for example. But giving him a birth of "circa
1347" is just going to lead to more silly logic of the type of which we've seen
too much :)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2005 23:16:02

In a message dated 11/8/05 11:15:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< I can't see that you provided us a reference for the indenture document
you cited for the marriage. >>

E 326/3571 Indenture between Jane, countess of Westmoreland, and Sir John
Gryffyth, knight, for the marriage of Walter, son and heir of the latter, with
Jane, daughter of Sir Ralph Neville, knight, and of Mary, the countess's
daughter, the espousals to be solemnized on the sixth of November next. Sir John is
to settle on Walter and Jane lands in Anneys Burton (Burton Agnes) and
elsewhere in Yorkshire to the yearly value of 100 marks. &c.: York. 23 September, 14
Henry VI.

E 327/181 Defeasance of a bond concerning the marriage of Walter son and heir
of John Griffith, knight, and Joan daughter of Ralph Neville, knight 14 Hen VI

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 nov 2005 00:13:31

In message of 9 Nov, "jeffchip9" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

A lozenge is a "shape," specifically a diamond shape. In heraldry it
has never meant anything but the fact that the woman in question was
single, either a spinster or a widow. The lozenge displays her arms.
A coat can itself be diamond shaped, or it can be a charge on the coat.

<snip>

I trust I have not snipped beyond meaning but this looks like the core
proposition.

What I am not sure of is what the original arms you are referring to
were like: were they arms on a lozenge? Or were the arms on a shield
with a lozenge as a charge?

If the former they are definitely the arms of a maiden or a widow.

If the latter, there is no reference I can find that says the bearer was
a maiden or a widow.

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

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 00:24:01

In a message dated 11/9/05 3:00:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Jane Neville did not invent the
lozenge, she simply followed a custom that had been observed for at
least 100 years >>

This statement is utterly absurd. You have given absolutely zero evidence
that a lozenge was used for any purpose whatsoever in this period of time. You
have only quoted a modern heraldry dictionary to "prove" your case of what
they did or didn't do five hundred years previously.

When this is pointed out, over and over, you simply argue your "opinion" more
without posting *any* new evidence to back it up. Do you think by repeating
yourself a hundred times, we'll finally agree?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 00:29:01

In a message dated 11/9/05 3:15:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
batruth@hotmail.com writes:

<< Sir Walter's 1531 will, >>

Does someone have the text of this will that they can post?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Walter Griffith II d 1481

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 00:37:01

On another front, looking again at the Indenture, is the statement that John
is "going to settle on them" lands in Burton Agnes... without any mention of a
guardian, or custodian or whatever it might have been called at that time
..... does this indicate possible that Walter was already an adult by this time
(1435) ? That is, if Walter had been a minor would there be someone appointed
in this transaction to act in his place or act as administrator of the lands
*until* he reached majority ? Or should I not read that extra bit into this?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Brad Verity

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 10 nov 2005 00:46:18

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Does someone have the text of this will that they can post?

Dear Will,

The following paragraph is taken from the website

http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people ... early.html

"Her son, the second Sir Walter Griffith, was knighted in Scotland in
1497 by the Earl of Surrey when he repelled the invasion of James IV at
the time of Perkin Warbeck's insurrection. He was High Sheriff'of
Yorkshire in 1501,and at the time of his death in 1531 he was Constable
of Scarborough Castle. His will, which is full of interest, provides
that his body " be beried in the new Chappell, annexed to the Churche
of Sancte Martyn at Annas Burton, where my ladie, my moder lieth." He
wills that "a priest be wadged to pray for the leth of my soull, my
fader's and moder's--in the Church and Chappell of Annas Burton, where
my said moder is beried, for the space of fortie yeres after my
decesse, and to have yerely for his wages eight marces, supposing that
by such space as thies yeres shal be ended myne heires, of there
charitable mynd will devise for the helth of theire soulls and ours in
likewise; and so from heire to heire for ever, so to be continued,
whiche I pray God grante them grace for to do, according to the good
example of my moder that this did begyn." He refers to lands in Wales
which he sold to Sir Ryse ap Thomas, Kt., a fact of which we are
reminded by some modern glass in the Church."

Sir Walter's will was apparently printed in 'Testamenta Eboracensia'
Volume 5, p. 287.

Cheers, ---------Brad

Gjest

Re: Sir Walter Griffith II d 1481

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 00:49:02

Dear Will,
Excellent point. As We saw some time ago for instance with
Sir Edward Stradling and young Walter Dennys, if a father had died rather than
giving a minor custody of his estates, a guardian was appointed and until the
Youth was of full age, the Guardian recieved the rents and took care of the
property. In this case John would live several more years and so would probably
not be granting a manor to his minor son... married or not.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Sir Walter Griffith II d 1481

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 00:56:02

In a message dated 11/9/05 3:51:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< In this case John would live several more years and so would probably
not be granting a manor to his minor son... married or not. >>

So are you saying that this indenture means something like this:
"I'm stating the gift now, but not *giving* it now. I will *give* it at some
indeterminate point in the future. Therefore I don't need to appoint anybody
right now to oversee it for the married couple, since I'm still doing that
myself ...."

Something like that?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Sir Walter Griffith II d 1481

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 01:17:01

Dear Will,
I don`t know. Indenture apparently means nothing more than a
contract. Sir John Griffith agreed with the Countess of Westmoreland that He
would settle Annes Burton on Walter and Joan when They married. It sounds as
if Walter was already of age in November 1435. whether Joan was or not.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

jeffchip9

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 10 nov 2005 03:32:57

I am going to have to wrap this up. I received Doug's email this
afternoon and I appreciate that he left John Higgins' comments
appended. This tablet is not mentioned in the Francis Thynne material
I sent Doug. John uses the phrase "uncertain provenance" and "if this
is in fact valid" and "appears to be a transcription," etc.
I have stated my case as well as I can. There is no doubt that the
diamond emblem on Jane Neville's tomb is a lozenge. Any other
interpretation is not supported by the literature or anything else. I
am confident that the College of Arms would agree that the emblem is a
lozenge and further that it means that the woman is single, and in this
case, a widow. Frankly, I think they would be the proper authority to
settle the question. For what it's worth, nobody has ever been able
to prove that Thomas Griffith was the grandson of Nicholas la Zouche.
The error that gives Sir Walter Griffith a second wife is a very old
one. It has been repeated in a variety of ways over the years, but
it's interesting to note that nobody has actually ever proved it by
means of a contemporary legal document. Walter and Jane were not of
the class of people who would have made a child marriage. Jane brought
no title and no estate to the marriage. She was not an heiress or the
daughter of a peer who was entitled to some sort of inheritance.
Someone suggested (and I don't remember who) that a financial
consideration was involved, and though that is not proven, it seems a
good theory to explain why the wealthy Joan Beaufort was involved,
rather than Jane's parents who were alive and well at the time.

The restoration of the church at Burton Agnes was begun in the
mid-1800s.

John's notes say that the tablet says that the Sir Walter living in
1511 was the second Sir Walter. He does not date the tablet to 1511.
Since I have no idea where the tablet is, and can't have anybody look
at it, and the SAL material says nothing about it, what do you want me
to say, Doug? 1791 notes by a country rector are great, but like
anything else should be traced back to the source, if possible.
Sometimes such things are all that is available on an event, and we
have to weigh the source and decide how much credence we want to give
it. What you have here is a 1791 and an 1868 source commenting (I
guess) on something that was evidently much earlier. Agnes Constable
was not an heiress either, but had an interesting baronial background
and is worth studying. We all know that herald's visitations, which
again are sometimes the only source for an event, are to be used with
caution. Any material generated by a family (and I don't mean wills,
deeds, IPMs, in other words what we would call today "court records")
need to be used with caution. John concludes his comments by saying
"obviously it would be desirable to have more information on this
tablet and its history...."
I don't have a problem with that, if possible. I will say that John's
assessment of it is considerably less enthusiatic than Doug's. Unless
Doug can produce this thing, we're relying on heresay.

What is not heresay is the lozenge on Jane Neville's coat. This is
something she did herself. I have explained that there are a variety
of ways to display a lozenge. Sometimes I wonder if people really read
the stuff I post. An example of a grandaughter of Edward I using the
lozenge of 1347 was apparently ignored. The main thing about the
lozenge is its shape. Sure there are other parts of it, but what
identifies a lozenge as a lozenge, regardless of how it is displayed is
the diamond shape. What is so difficult about that? The statement
that the lozenge can only be used as a coat is simply not true. Jane
Neville's lozenge on her coat on her tomb is complete proof that her
husband was dead when she died. I know the provenance of the drawing of
her arms and can date it, and can further say where you can find it and
get a copy of it. Doug seems to think that the fact that the tablet
was not at St. Martin's proves something; what it says to me is that
that gives us even more reason to scrutinize this evidence carefully,
since it was not in situ.

Since I do not believe it is going to do any good to keep telling
people (and by the way, where is the proof that this Walter Griffith
who m. Neville was a knight? Maybe he was, I don't know.) that Jane
Neville's husband Walter could not have married Agnes Constable because
he was dead, I have a proposition: let's let the College of Arms
decide what it means. Going around in circles will accomplish nothing.
Since we have a drawing of Jane's arms made in 1604, let's see what
the real experts have to say about it. I can at least tell them where
it came from and who has custody ot the material (as to what happened
to the original scroll, I have no idea, but the rendering of her tomb
is actually a photograph of the scroll with a ruler inserted to provide
a sense of scale).

Evidently this matter has stirred up a hornet's nest which has spilled
over into several threads, so let's put it to rest.

Jeff Chipman

R. Battle

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av R. Battle » 10 nov 2005 06:16:48

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, jeffchip9 wrote:

<snip>
Unless Doug can produce this thing [the 1511 tablet/obit list-RB], we're
relying on heresay.

What is not heresay is the lozenge on Jane Neville's coat. This is
something she did herself.

Presumably you don't mean that she carved it herself. :-) As you've
described the source, though, it is as much hearsay as the 1511 item--one
is a purported drawing of a monument, and the other is a purported
transcription of an inscription.

I have explained that there are a variety
of ways to display a lozenge. Sometimes I wonder if people really read
the stuff I post. An example of a grandaughter of Edward I using the
lozenge of 1347 was apparently ignored. The main thing about the
lozenge is its shape. Sure there are other parts of it, but what
identifies a lozenge as a lozenge, regardless of how it is displayed is
the diamond shape. What is so difficult about that? The statement
that the lozenge can only be used as a coat is simply not true.

No one has made that claim as far as I can tell from the posts I've read.
Lozenges can indeed be used in several ways; the problem is that you
appear to be claiming that no matter how a lozenge is used it means the
same thing. A lozenge within a shield says nothing about the gender or
marital status of the person represented by the arms; it is only when a
lozenge is used instead of a shield that that is the case.

-Robert Battle

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 06:49:50

R. Battle schrieb:

Lozenges can indeed be used in several ways; the problem is that you
appear to be claiming that no matter how a lozenge is used it means the
same thing. A lozenge within a shield says nothing about the gender or
marital status of the person represented by the arms; it is only when a
lozenge is used instead of a shield that that is the case.

Robert

Thank you for showing that someone reads and understands what I have
taken the trouble to write! Jeff unfortunately does not appear to
engage at all, but to stick with his own peculiar mis-reading of what
ought to be a basic position.

Regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 07:13:02

In a message dated 11/9/2005 9:14:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:


Current
thinking seems to be that Walter who married Jane was an adult at the
time of the nuptials. That would make him b. ca. 1415 or so, simply by
saying he was around 20 when he married and that was what I based my
estimate on.

You are overstating this case.
I *asked* if the lack of any specifically-named person in the indenture, to
hold the property *for* the couple until Walter's majority, were an indication
that Walter was already in his majority.

I am agnostic on the question, I was asking for input. I haven't heard
anything definite, but to my way of thinking using an exact year instead of a range
is asking for trouble as people will quote you forward of this and drop the
"c" and drop the argument explaining it.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Sir Walter Griffith II d 1481

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 nov 2005 07:17:17

In message of 10 Nov, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Indenture apparently means nothing more than a contract.

Indenture means indented. This was the result on writing two copies of
a contract on one sheet (of parchment) and then making a zig-zag cut,
or indenture, to separate the two copies. This enables anyone to verify
in the future that one of the contracts was the mate of the other, by
seeing if the lines of cut fitted together exactly. After due passage
of time, indenture indeed came to mean the contracts themselves.

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

Gjest

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 07:20:02

I cannot google for "lozenge" as I get a few billion hits :)
So maybe someone can explain what one ... is exactly?

On some shields I see a "little shield" in the middle of it. Is that a
lozenge?
And how exactly does one tell a shield from a lozenge?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 07:24:02

In a message dated 11/9/2005 8:16:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:


The arms in the 1st and 3rd quarters, the upper left and lower right are
Neville, those in the upper right are Mar, and I would assume those in the
lower left are also, I have no idea what those others you described would
be.

You cannot tell this from the description since it included no colors, and
the colors are relevant to determining that the quarter is Neville. At most you
can say, it might be Neville *were* it a silver X on a red background.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 nov 2005 07:42:45

In message of 10 Nov, "jeffchip9" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I have a proposition: let's let the College of Arms decide what it
means. Going around in circles will accomplish nothing. Since we
have a drawing of Jane's arms made in 1604, let's see what the real
experts have to say about it.

<snip>

May I add a warning or two here? In 1996 my father got a herald to do
some work for him. The result was some genealogy that showed at least
five serious errors in either genealogy or heraldry for the early middle
ages. If they had bothered to check against even CP they would have
found some of these errors. I suspect that one problem is that the
Visitation documents have the status of court records as they were
produced by command of the sovereign; therefore the heralds accept
anything that is on Visitation documents as gospel.

The other warning is that the fees will be heavy as the English heralds
have no salaries and have to earn a living from their customers.

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 nov 2005 08:19:34

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I cannot google for "lozenge" as I get a few billion hits :)
So maybe someone can explain what one ... is exactly?

On some shields I see a "little shield" in the middle of it. Is that a
lozenge?
And how exactly does one tell a shield from a lozenge?

A lozenge is a charge shaped like a 'diamond' (four sides, opposite
sides parallel, standing on its point like the diamond suit on playing
cards, usually narrower than tall, but not too much or it becomes
something different). There is usually a counted number (e.g. one,
three, ten) - a field scattered with them, lozengy, is usually
represented simply as a grid formed by crossing diagonal lines. A shield
can be the shape of a lozenge, usually indicating a woman (but a married
woman's is usually displayed as either impaled or placed in escutcheon
on their husband's).

A little shield in the middle, in the shape of a typical shield (flat
top, sides curving or deflecting in to a point at the bottom) is an
escutcheon.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 nov 2005 08:32:12

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I cannot google for "lozenge" as I get a few billion hits :)
So maybe someone can explain what one ... is exactly?

The Oxford Guide to Heraldry says:

"A diamond shape used both as a charge and instead of a shield to
display the arms of a single woman and peeresses in their own right"

Regrettably this is ambiguous. The text in this and other lexicons
make it clear that lozenge has two definitions:

1. A diamond shape used as a charge [a charge is an item on a coat of
arms].

2. A diamond shape used instead of a shield to display the arms of a
single woman and peeresses in their own right.

In relation to the first definition, Papworth's "Ordinary of Arms" (that
is, it starts with the blazons and gives you the names of the holders)
has just over seven pages of arms where the principal charge is one or
more lozenges.

On some shields I see a "little shield" in the middle of it. Is that
a lozenge?

No. It is a shield of pretence to show the arms, or some of them, that
the children of the armiger (male) will inherit as quarterings because
their mother is a heraldic heiress. It is a way of showing off that
your wife is a heraldically superior being.

And how exactly does one tell a shield from a lozenge?

A shield can have many forms: circle, oval, triangle, heater (most
common). It is just something on which the arms are inscribed. In
addition arms can be inscribed on a lozenge shape as above. In
addition for unmarried ladies the arms may also be surrounded by a
"true lovers knot" in a blue ribbon (thus allowing some artistic licence
in the way that the mantling is used for chaps).

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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2005 10:19:35

My comments are interspersed below. DR

jeffchip9 wrote:
John's notes say that the tablet says that the Sir Walter living in
1511 was the second Sir Walter. He does not date the tablet to 1511.

Stebbing Shaw states that the tabula obituum (list of deaths) was made
["facta"] by Sir Walter Griffith II {"secundo"] in 1511. Thus it
would appear that the document tells its maker and gives the date for
its creation.

The transcript of the document in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica
1:64 which John Higgins already posted commences with the following
statement:

"Obitus et propagationes antecessorum secundi Walteri Griffith militis
qui hanc tabulam fieri fecit 26° die Septembris A° d'ni 1511 A° 3°
Henrici 8."

I think that is rather plain. Don't you?

Since I have no idea where the tablet is, and can't have anybody look
at it, and the SAL material says nothing about it, what do you want me
to say, Doug?

Shaw indicates that the Griffith tabula obituum is part of Harleian
Manuscript 1077, f. 94a. You should be able to obtain a copy of this
document at a nominal charge from the British Library. Good luck in
your sleuthing!

Jeff Chipman

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 nov 2005 10:37:07

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
A little shield in the middle, in the shape of a typical shield (flat
top, sides curving or deflecting in to a point at the bottom) is an
escutcheon.

I think strictly it's an "inescutcheon" (an escutcheon being any sort of
shield).

If Jeff Chipman wants to see an example of how a lozenge is used to indicate
the arms of an unmarried woman, there is an illustration on the College of
Arms website:
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/12.htm

The commentary indicates clearly that the important thing is that the arms
are borne _on_ a lozenge (or oval) instead of a shield.

There is no mention of the use of a lozenge as a _charge_ on the shield to
indicate this.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»