Assistance with two Family crests

[notaninch]

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

[davidbappleton]

I dare say all that is true for most of us!

David

[notaninch]

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

[davidbappleton]

The second son would normally difference the arms with a crescent.

David

[notaninch]

The second son would normally difference the arms with a crescent.

David

Cheers David you are a crescent.... oops I meant star

[davidbappleton]

LOL! You are most welcome!

David

[notaninch]

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?

[davidbappleton]

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.

[notaninch]

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