RootsChat.Com
Some Special Interests => Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms => Topic started by: notaninch on Sunday 14 May 17 15:28 BST (UK)
-
I need some guidance on family crests? It concerns two family crests for the related Pennyfather (or however the name is spelt) families. One of these is found in a book concerning the history of Tatenhill (close to Barton Under Needwood) the other is from a Visitation to London and is conferred to William Sheriff of London and references John Pennefather of Barton Under Needwood (attached). There appears to be a dispute in the families about their usage. In the one from the Tatenhill history, attached it states a John Pennifather issues a disclaimer. Now does that mean he (John Pennifather) will no longer use the crest or does it mean he is contesting who is using this particular family crest. Interestingly though the Tatenhill crest, showing Abraham Pennefather, is not found in the County of Staffordshire Visitation of 1663/4. So does William Dugdale, the then Norroy of Kings Arms revoke this crest that was being disclaimed? Is my understanding correct that the arms granted were retrospective back to the grandfather of the direct line then descendants of that line ownwards?
-
A "disclaimer" in the Heralds' Visitations meant that if the claimant’s evidence of the right to bear a coat of arms was found to be insufficient, he was disclaimed: required to sign a statement that he was "no gentleman" and forbidden to bear arms. This is apparently what happened to John Penifather in the Visitation of 1663-4.
The Visitation by Camden, Clarencieux, is not a grant of arms; it is the recognition of a right to bear those arms by William Penyfather, along with a pedigree going back two generations to John Penyfather. It really doesn't tell us whether the arms were borne by John, only that the heralds recognized the right of William to bear them. To know whether John legitimately bore the arms, we'd need to see the herald's notes (most of which are retained by the College of Arms), or to know when/if a grant was made of these arms.
It may be that William had a grant. It may be that William had evidence that John did not to prove a right to the arms by the family. It may be that John was unwilling to even meet with the heralds of the Visitation to present evidence of lawful use of the arms. Or it may be something else entirely.
I hope that this information is of at least some help to you.
David
-
A "disclaimer" in the Heralds' Visitations meant that if the claimant’s evidence of the right to bear a coat of arms was found to be insufficient, he was disclaimed: required to sign a statement that he was "no gentleman" and forbidden to bear arms. This is apparently what happened to John Penifather in the Visitation of 1663-4.
The Visitation by Camden, Clarencieux, is not a grant of arms; it is the recognition of a right to bear those arms by William Penyfather, along with a pedigree going back two generations to John Penyfather. It really doesn't tell us whether the arms were borne by John, only that the heralds recognized the right of William to bear them. To know whether John legitimately bore the arms, we'd need to see the herald's notes (most of which are retained by the College of Arms), or to know when/if a grant was made of these arms.
It may be that William had a grant. It may be that William had evidence that John did not to prove a right to the arms by the family. It may be that John was unwilling to even meet with the heralds of the Visitation to present evidence of lawful use of the arms. Or it may be something else entirely.
I hope that this information is of at least some help to you.
David
David thanks for this it certainly helps. As far as the Arms for William are concerned I am quite happy of the lineage back to grandfather John. John of course was already dead by the time of the visitation of Camden 1634.
The one were John the younger of Barton is disclaimed is slightly more difficult to reconcile. I believe John grandfather of William above was most likely the great grandfather of John the younger of Barton.
In other words both these families are in the direct line of John the elder but a generation apart so to speak and I guess it is why there were two crests. I hope I'm making sense.
-
A "disclaimer" in the Heralds' Visitations meant that if the claimant’s evidence of the right to bear a coat of arms was found to be insufficient, he was disclaimed: required to sign a statement that he was "no gentleman" and forbidden to bear arms. This is apparently what happened to John Penifather in the Visitation of 1663-4.
The Visitation by Camden, Clarencieux, is not a grant of arms; it is the recognition of a right to bear those arms by William Penyfather, along with a pedigree going back two generations to John Penyfather. It really doesn't tell us whether the arms were borne by John, only that the heralds recognized the right of William to bear them. To know whether John legitimately bore the arms, we'd need to see the herald's notes (most of which are retained by the College of Arms), or to know when/if a grant was made of these arms.
It may be that William had a grant. It may be that William had evidence that John did not to prove a right to the arms by the family. It may be that John was unwilling to even meet with the heralds of the Visitation to present evidence of lawful use of the arms. Or it may be something else entirely.
I hope that this information is of at least some help to you.
David
David just a couple of quick queries the terms armiger and chiliarcha are these related to heraldry too. I find them in alumni records. Are they used in both heraldry and alumni and what do they mean in English terms
-
"Armiger" is a term related to heraldry; a person who has a coat of arms is called an armiger.
I am not familiar with the term "chiliarcha"; it is not an heraldic term.
According to Wikipedia, "Chiliarch (from Greek: χιλίαρχος, chiliarchos, sometimes χιλιάρχης, chiliarches or χειλίαρχος, cheiliarchos; meaning "commander of a thousand" and occasionally rendered "thousandman" in English) is a military rank dating back to Antiquity."
David
-
"Armiger" is a term related to heraldry; a person who has a coat of arms is called an armiger.
I am not familiar with the term "chiliarcha"; it is not an heraldic term.
According to Wikipedia, "Chiliarch (from Greek: χιλίαρχος, chiliarchos, sometimes χιλιάρχης, chiliarches or χειλίαρχος, cheiliarchos; meaning "commander of a thousand" and occasionally rendered "thousandman" in English) is a military rank dating back to Antiquity."
David
Cheers David these fit with the members who are named so. Not sure they guy commanded 1,000 men but he was a significant army man.
-
"Armiger" is a term related to heraldry; a person who has a coat of arms is called an armiger.
I am not familiar with the term "chiliarcha"; it is not an heraldic term.
According to Wikipedia, "Chiliarch (from Greek: χιλίαρχος, chiliarchos, sometimes χιλιάρχης, chiliarches or χειλίαρχος, cheiliarchos; meaning "commander of a thousand" and occasionally rendered "thousandman" in English) is a military rank dating back to Antiquity."
David
Cheers David these fit with the members who are named so. Not sure they guy commanded 1,000 men but he was a significant army man.
Hi David assuming you know the answer I would like to clear up the facts about coats of arms. My understanding is that the rules regarding those who are allowed to use them varies by country. What I need to better understand is what was/is the rule in England?
Were the rules the same in Ireland when under English rule ? I need to fully understand it at the granular level and hence the many and detailed questions.
The coat of arms in Ireland was conferred to an individual not a family (Yes or No).
The individuals father and his grandfather were entitled to use the coat of arms(Yes or No)
Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat of arms (Yes or No)
Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat of arms (Yes or No)
Were only the direct descendants down from the individual to use the same coat of arms (Yes or No)
The individual's siblings were entitled to use his coat of arms (Yes or No)
The individuals's siblings children, grandchildren were entitled to use his coat of arms (Yes or No)
I hope you have a much simpler answer to my question, lol
Thanks
-
>Were the rules the same in Ireland when under English rule ? I need to fully understand
>it at the granular level and hence the many and detailed questions.
I think it is possible to spend a lifetime of study and not "fully" understand heraldry and its rules, much less how closely the rules are followed - or not - in practice.
In theory, yes, the rules in Ireland under English rule were the same as in England. In practice, however, it was primarily this way only in the areas under firm English control (e.g., Dublin). Out in the hinterland, English heraldic law was not so strictly followed.
>The coat of arms in Ireland was conferred to an individual not a family (Yes or No).
Yes.
>The individuals father and his grandfather were entitled to use the coat of arms(Yes or No)
Not unless it said so in the grant of arms. As one famous example, the arms that William Shakespeare bore were actually granted (posthumously) to his father John, though the application was made by William (who then, of course, inherited the arms).
>Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat of arms
>(Yes or No)
Only if the arms were granted to the grandfather, and then only to direct male-line descendants.
>Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat
>of arms (Yes or No)
Again, only if the grant was made (even posthumously) to the grandfather. And in that case, in theory, not the "same" arms. Only the eldest son (and his eldest son, and so on) ended up bearing the undifferenced arms. All of the other sons (and all of their sons) would bear the arms with a difference. In the English system of differencing, this usually involved adding a small charge - a crescent, a mullet, an annulet, etc. - to the arms.
That's the theory. In practice, the system of English differencing is cumbersome (imagine the fourth son of a fifth son of a second son, who would bear the basic arms with a small crescent charged with an annulet charged with a martlet; identification rapidly becomes an impossibility) and frequently ignored.
>Were only the direct descendants down from the individual to use the same coat
>of arms (Yes or No)
If the grant was made to him, yes, his male-line direct descendants would be able to use the same coat. Again, with the proviso that under English heraldic law, only the eldest son would inherit the undifferenced arms. The younger sons (and their male descendants) would be expected to (though often didn't) bear the arms with a difference.
>The individual's siblings were entitled to use his coat of arms (Yes or No)
No. If the grant was made to the individual, his brothers would have no entitlement to the arms.
>The individuals's siblings children, grandchildren were entitled to use his coat of
>arms (Yes or No)
No. If the grant was made to the individual, his nephews and his nephews' children, would have no entitlement to the arms.
I hope that all of this information is helpful to you. It's a complex field, and what occurs in practice does not always follow the prescriptions of the heralds. To borrow a line from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, “The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
David
-
>Were the rules the same in Ireland when under English rule ? I need to fully understand
>it at the granular level and hence the many and detailed questions.
I think it is possible to spend a lifetime of study and not "fully" understand heraldry and its rules, much less how closely the rules are followed - or not - in practice.
In theory, yes, the rules in Ireland under English rule were the same as in England. In practice, however, it was primarily this way only in the areas under firm English control (e.g., Dublin). Out in the hinterland, English heraldic law was not so strictly followed.
>The coat of arms in Ireland was conferred to an individual not a family (Yes or No).
Yes.
>The individuals father and his grandfather were entitled to use the coat of arms(Yes or No)
Not unless it said so in the grant of arms. As one famous example, the arms that William Shakespeare bore were actually granted (posthumously) to his father John, though the application was made by William (who then, of course, inherited the arms).
>Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat of arms
>(Yes or No)
Only if the arms were granted to the grandfather, and then only to direct male-line descendants.
>Were all the direct descendants of his grandfather allowed to use the same coat
>of arms (Yes or No)
Again, only if the grant was made (even posthumously) to the grandfather. And in that case, in theory, not the "same" arms. Only the eldest son (and his eldest son, and so on) ended up bearing the undifferenced arms. All of the other sons (and all of their sons) would bear the arms with a difference. In the English system of differencing, this usually involved adding a small charge - a crescent, a mullet, an annulet, etc. - to the arms.
That's the theory. In practice, the system of English differencing is cumbersome (imagine the fourth son of a fifth son of a second son, who would bear the basic arms with a small crescent charged with an annulet charged with a martlet; identification rapidly becomes an impossibility) and frequently ignored.
>Were only the direct descendants down from the individual to use the same coat
>of arms (Yes or No)
If the grant was made to him, yes, his male-line direct descendants would be able to use the same coat. Again, with the proviso that under English heraldic law, only the eldest son would inherit the undifferenced arms. The younger sons (and their male descendants) would be expected to (though often didn't) bear the arms with a difference.
>The individual's siblings were entitled to use his coat of arms (Yes or No)
No. If the grant was made to the individual, his brothers would have no entitlement to the arms.
>The individuals's siblings children, grandchildren were entitled to use his coat of
>arms (Yes or No)
No. If the grant was made to the individual, his nephews and his nephews' children, would have no entitlement to the arms.
I hope that all of this information is helpful to you. It's a complex field, and what occurs in practice does not always follow the prescriptions of the heralds. To borrow a line from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, “The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
David
David, thank you so much for such a thorough response. I suspected it would be lot's of conditional's but it gives me a better picture. The rule of thumb appears to be conferred to an individual who could pass it down through his eldest son and then they their eldest son ad infinitum. Only could it be backdated to individual's direct line if stated in the conditions.
Other in the family not in the direct line of the recipient would then apply for and use another coat of arms similar but with some change e.g. mullet. Does this about sum it up.
-
Yes, that's pretty much it. The unchanged arms go down from the original grantee through a line of eldest sons. Everyone else should use a differenced version.
Again, that's the theory; in practice, we quite often seen the younger sons and their descendants also using the undifferenced arms.
David
-
Yes, that's pretty much it. The unchanged arms go down from the original grantee through a line of eldest sons. Everyone else should use a differenced version.
Again, that's the theory; in practice, we quite often seen the younger sons and their descendants also using the undifferenced arms.
David
David just want to run this by you. In the attached are two coats of arms. I believe they are two distinct branches of the family the coloured one being the Irish contingent and the monochrome and English contingent. Bear with me there is a slight twist the monochrome one existed before but without the mullet. So there were 3 coats awarded at various times. As far as I can tell the monochrome coat disappeared because this line died out in the about 1690. The coloured one is still in use. Does this make sense to you and do you think I've about got the correct interpretation based on heraldic conventions.
-
The "monochrome" version actually has letters indicating the colours! ;D
Or and Gu = Or and Gules = Yellow and red.
The bend (diagonal stripe) is ermine which is always white with black markings.
So, they are the same Coat-of-arms, except 1 has a mullet for difference.
-
Except for the mullet, the mark of a third son, however, the two coats are identical, that is to say, they would each be blazoned as Per fess or and gules a bend ermine and they share the same crest. All we really can say is that the monochrome coat ("tricked," since it tells us that the tinctures are "Or" and "Gu") was borne by a third son, and it may or may not have been the result of a specific grant of arms; very frequently younger sons simply used their father's arms with a mark of difference without going to the heralds to receive a grant of their own. Indeed, the text of many grants of arms state that they may be borne by the grantee "and by his descendants with due and proper difference and according to the Laws of Arms," so no additional grants needed to be made to any of these descendants.
So I doubt that there were three different grants of arms here. It's possible that there were two, one Irish and one English; but it's also entirely possible that there was but one, and the different branches of the family on both sides of the Irish Sea used the same arms.
David
-
Except for the mullet, the mark of a third son, however, the two coats are identical, that is to say, they would each be blazoned as Per fess or and gules a bend ermine and they share the same crest. All we really can say is that the monochrome coat ("tricked," since it tells us that the tinctures are "Or" and "Gu") was borne by a third son, and it may or may not have been the result of a specific grant of arms; very frequently younger sons simply used their father's arms with a mark of difference without going to the heralds to receive a grant of their own. Indeed, the text of many grants of arms state that they may be borne by the grantee "and by his descendants with due and proper difference and according to the Laws of Arms," so no additional grants needed to be made to any of these descendants.
So I doubt that there were three different grants of arms here. It's possible that there were two, one Irish and one English; but it's also entirely possible that there was but one, and the different branches of the family on both sides of the Irish Sea used the same arms.
David
I probably need to enrol in a post graduate course on heraldry or just give up or have a few stiff drinks.
Naively there I was thinking there were clear defined rules that even someone of my limited knowledge might understand. Well I got that badly wrong then. A big thank you nevertheless because I am further forward than before so thanks again David really appreciated and K. G too a thank you for your contribution.
Need to check out my heraldic dictionary, bin it, start again and have a lie down in a dark room lol. Cheers
-
I think John Brooke-Little, former Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, said it best in the introduction to his book An Heraldic Alphabet:
"You can study heraldry until you are azure ... in the face but inevitably discover, from time to time, that you really are quite vert.... I have found this over and over again but, never forget, herein lies the fun and if heraldry ever ceases to be fun- chuck it."
I have been studying and researching heraldry for over 35 years, and continue to learn something new about it on a fairly regular basis.
But, yeah, sometimes a lie down in a dark room seems like a very pleasant idea!
David
-
Drawshield.net is a good starting point! ;D
Try the Help pages.
-
I think John Brooke-Little, former Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, said it best in the introduction to his book An Heraldic Alphabet:
"You can study heraldry until you are azure ... in the face but inevitably discover, from time to time, that you really are quite vert.... I have found this over and over again but, never forget, herein lies the fun and if heraldry ever ceases to be fun- chuck it."
I have been studying and researching heraldry for over 35 years, and continue to learn something new about it on a fairly regular basis.
But, yeah, sometimes a lie down in a dark room seems like a very pleasant idea!
David
Hello David
Hope you are well. Need assistance with one more crest. I need to understand how this one has developed from the original. As far as I can tell this one is a later version of the English one but used by an Irish direct descendant. However I don't fully understand the quartering. The original had a sitting lion but this has one has two lions one sitting and another lion standing why ? Why are there 3 quarters and what is the Irish part and what the English ? Am I making sense?
-
There is only one crest here, "A lion sejant argent sustaining an oval shield, per fess or and gules charged with a bend ermine."
The shield has the arms of Mathew Pennefather (Per fess or and gules a bend ermine) on the dexter half of the shield, impaled with the arms of his wife (or more strictly speaking, his wife's father) on the sinister half of the shield. Those arms are not entirely clear here, since the image doesn't show hatching or the details of the lion very well, but look to be something like "(Azure or gules) a lion rampant crowned(?) (and possible holding something in its dexter forpaw) (probably or)."
If this Mathew Pennefather is the Matthew Pennefather (1784-1858), son of Richard and Anna (Jacob) Pennefather, his wife was Anna, daughter of Daniel O'Connor of Ballybricken, co. Cork. Some of the O'Connor families of Ireland (mostly in County Kerry that I can see) bear the arms "Vert a lion rampant double-queued and crowned or." I can't tell from the scan; does the lion here have two tails?
In any case, this form of impalement (of two coats of arms on a single shield) is a common way for a husband and wife to display their combined arms during their lifetimes. Their children would not inherit the wife's arms.
I hop that this information is helpful to you.
David
-
David
Thanks it does help. The addition of the O'Connor arms is what I didn't get so your expertise has filled the gap for me. Otherwise it makes as much sense as I can expect it to given I am not even at the novice stage. I did not think I would say this but heraldry is quite an engrossing and fascinating subject, steady on I hear say. Alas I'm afraid I don't have the hours in the day to get really up close and personal with it.
Cheers
-
I dare say all that is true for most of us!
David
-
I dare say all that is true for most of us!
David
Hi David hope you are well. Quick question when other members of the family are granted a coat of arms I see it shows a difference e.g. the addition of a mullet. I think you may have already suggested to me that rules indicates it is the third son - so what would be added to the coat of arms of a second son?
Cheers
-
The second son would normally difference the arms with a crescent.
David
-
The second son would normally difference the arms with a crescent.
David
Cheers David you are a crescent.... oops I meant star
-
LOL! You are most welcome!
David
-
LOL! You are most welcome!
David
Hi David - Hope you are well - Can you give me your take on the wording in this armorial bearing. It belongs to the original Pennefather Coat of Arms. I am particularly interested in the words temp. Queen Elizabeth. Obviously it is Elizabeth I but what is the significance if anything of the word temp. ?
Note it does not give his first name. Is there a way I can discover specifically which Penyfather was granted the arms and the year it was granted?
-
In the phrase "temp. Queen Elizabeth," "temp." is from the Latin tempus, or "time" (as in the phrase tempus fugit, "time flies." It's shorthand for "in the time of Queen Elizabeth."
Grantees of Arms to the End of the 17th Century (Foster) (1915) states that this coat of arms (with a mullet for difference) was confirmed in 1603, possibly by William Segar, then Norroy King of Arms, to William, younger son of John Peneyfather,* of Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire. I have attached a scan of the entry from the book. So the undifferenced arms would have been granted sometime previous to 1603 to John Peneyfather.
David
* Spelling was not as fixed back then as it is now. Indeed, in my own family tree, among the Bigelow branch in the 17th and early 18th Centuries, I have found spellings ranging from Biglo to Biguloh to Biggalough (and even Baguley). And even in the 19th Century, American humorist Mark Twain once said that he could have no respect for a man who couldn't think of more than one way to spell a word.
-
In the phrase "temp. Queen Elizabeth," "temp." is from the Latin tempus, or "time" (as in the phrase tempus fugit, "time flies." It's shorthand for "in the time of Queen Elizabeth."
Grantees of Arms to the End of the 17th Century (Foster) (1915) states that this coat of arms (with a mullet for difference) was confirmed in 1603, possibly by William Segar, then Norroy King of Arms, to William, younger son of John Peneyfather,* of Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire. I have attached a scan of the entry from the book. So the undifferenced arms would have been granted sometime previous to 1603 to John Peneyfather.
David
* Spelling was not as fixed back then as it is now. Indeed, in my own family tree, among the Bigelow branch in the 17th and early 18th Centuries, I have found spellings ranging from Biglo to Biguloh to Biggalough (and even Baguley). And even in the 19th Century, American humorist Mark Twain once said that he could have no respect for a man who couldn't think of more than one way to spell a word.
David,
Thanks again for the help. I suspected it was Latin for in the time of but I don't take anything fro granted especially heraldry. This family is really throwing some challenges my way. What I don't quite get is William Penyfather of London claimed he was Lord Mayor when he was merely an alderman and then he lasted days before being fined £410 which in those days was a tidy sum of money. His father also named William left Staffordshire and moved to London. He was an ironmonger who allegedly made a fortune granted. Now from what I understand William the elder was the younger brother of John. Clearly William the younger appears to have either told the King of Arms porkie pies or the King of Arms misinterpreted the information or got it wrong or simply swallowed the line of William the younger and I may never discover which is absolutely correct.
Cheers
-
In the phrase "temp. Queen Elizabeth," "temp." is from the Latin tempus, or "time" (as in the phrase tempus fugit, "time flies." It's shorthand for "in the time of Queen Elizabeth."
Grantees of Arms to the End of the 17th Century (Foster) (1915) states that this coat of arms (with a mullet for difference) was confirmed in 1603, possibly by William Segar, then Norroy King of Arms, to William, younger son of John Peneyfather,* of Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire. I have attached a scan of the entry from the book. So the undifferenced arms would have been granted sometime previous to 1603 to John Peneyfather.
David
* Spelling was not as fixed back then as it is now. Indeed, in my own family tree, among the Bigelow branch in the 17th and early 18th Centuries, I have found spellings ranging from Biglo to Biguloh to Biggalough (and even Baguley). And even in the 19th Century, American humorist Mark Twain once said that he could have no respect for a man who couldn't think of more than one way to spell a word.
David,
Thanks again for the help. I suspected it was Latin for in the time of but I don't take anything for granted especially heraldry. This family is really throwing some challenges my way. What I don't quite get is William Penyfather of London claimed he was Lord Mayor when he was merely an alderman and then he lasted days before being fined £410 which in those days was a tidy sum of money. His father also named William left Staffordshire and moved to London. He was an ironmonger who allegedly made a fortune. Now from what I understand William the elder was the younger brother of John. Clearly William the younger appears to have either told the King of Arms porkie pies or the King of Arms misinterpreted the information or got it wrong or simply swallowed the line of William the younger and I may never discover which is absolutely correct.
Cheers
David
What I did not include in my previous reply is that in 1634 the coat of arms was confirmed and it is then that William the younger made the claim to having been Lord Mayor of London. But I still think he was economical about his true relationship to John who I believe was his uncle i.e. John being the eldest brother of William the Elder. I am almost 100% certain there was a third brother Thomas who was the 2nd born hence why William the Elder the 3rd son had a mullet for difference on the Arms.
Take Care
-
In the phrase "temp. Queen Elizabeth," "temp." is from the Latin tempus, or "time" (as in the phrase tempus fugit, "time flies." It's shorthand for "in the time of Queen Elizabeth."
Grantees of Arms to the End of the 17th Century (Foster) (1915) states that this coat of arms (with a mullet for difference) was confirmed in 1603, possibly by William Segar, then Norroy King of Arms, to William, younger son of John Peneyfather,* of Barton under Needwood, Staffordshire. I have attached a scan of the entry from the book. So the undifferenced arms would have been granted sometime previous to 1603 to John Peneyfather.
David
* Spelling was not as fixed back then as it is now. Indeed, in my own family tree, among the Bigelow branch in the 17th and early 18th Centuries, I have found spellings ranging from Biglo to Biguloh to Biggalough (and even Baguley). And even in the 19th Century, American humorist Mark Twain once said that he could have no respect for a man who couldn't think of more than one way to spell a word.
David,
Thanks again for the help. I suspected it was Latin for in the time of but I don't take anything for granted especially heraldry. This family is really throwing some challenges my way. What I don't quite get is William Penyfather of London claimed he was Lord Mayor when he was merely an alderman and then he lasted days before being fined £410 which in those days was a tidy sum of money. His father also named William left Staffordshire and moved to London. He was an ironmonger who allegedly made a fortune. Now from what I understand William the elder was the younger brother of John. Clearly William the younger appears to have either told the King of Arms porkie pies or the King of Arms misinterpreted the information or got it wrong or simply swallowed the line of William the younger and I may never discover which is absolutely correct.
Cheers
David
What I did not include in my previous reply is that in 1634 the coat of arms was confirmed and it is then that William the younger made the claim to having been Lord Mayor of London. But I still think he was economical about his true relationship to John who I believe was his uncle i.e. John being the eldest brother of William the Elder. I am almost 100% certain there was a third brother Thomas who was the 2nd born hence why William the Elder the 3rd son had a mullet for difference on the Arms.
Take Care
Hi David me again, hope you are well. Want to pick your brains. I have someone on the tree in Ireland who was granted a coat of arms. He had a distinguished military career in the Napoleonic wars. However he then died in 1823 aged 43. I can't actually find the date the arms were granted so I don't know if he was alive or the coat of arms were granted to him posthumously.
It states these were granted for use by him, his father and grandfather. Was this standard procedure in Ireland or was it a more flexible arrangement dependent on an individual case by case basis. Hope I have explained this clearly (as mud).
Cheers
-
It wasn't the standard practice to grant a coat of arms to an individual, his father, and his grandfather, but it wasn't unheard of, either.
You might try looking at the catalogues and databases held by the Genealogical Office (which includes the records of the Chief Herald of Ireland (CHI)) to see if your ancestor's name appears there. You could then write the CHI to obtain more information, if it's not already on-line in one of their digitized collections. The catalogues and database indexes can be found on the website of the National Library of Ireland at http://www.nli.ie/en/heraldry-catalogues-and-databases.aspx
David
-
It wasn't the standard practice to grant a coat of arms to an individual, his father, and his grandfather, but it wasn't unheard of, either.
You might try looking at the catalogues and databases held by the Genealogical Office (which includes the records of the Chief Herald of Ireland (CHI)) to see if your ancestor's name appears there. You could then write the CHI to obtain more information, if it's not already on-line in one of their digitized collections. The catalogues and database indexes can be found on the website of the National Library of Ireland at http://www.nli.ie/en/heraldry-catalogues-and-databases.aspx
David
Hi David - and Thanks
Yes it is there at the National Library. He got the arms 7 months before he died. In the summary it states the award is for him and his grandfather and adds descendants of his grandfather. I think I can get more detail from someone in Canada who I believe did follow this up but at the time I was in contact with them I was busy doing earlier research.
Cheers