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