Author Topic: Assistance with two Family crests  (Read 113 times)

Offline notaninch

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Assistance with two Family crests
« 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?

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline davidbappleton

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
    • Appleton Studios
Re: Assistance with two Family crests
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 14 May 17 22:24 BST (UK) »
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

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline notaninch

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Assistance with two Family crests
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 14 May 17 22:43 BST (UK) »
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.