Assistance with two Family crests

[notaninch]

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?

[davidbappleton]

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

[notaninch]

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. 

[notaninch]

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

[davidbappleton]

"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

[notaninch]

"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.

[notaninch]

"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

 

[davidbappleton]

>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

[notaninch]

>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.