RootsChat.Com
Some Special Interests => Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms => Topic started by: supermoussi on Saturday 02 November 13 12:41 GMT (UK)
-
Would I be correct in saying that the only people that appeared in the County Visitations were:-
1) People who had been awarded a coat of arms themselves
2) The senior male line of families that had been previously awarded heridatary arms (i.e., junior lines would not be eligible unless they had actually applied successfully to the College of Arms)
??
-
How about poltergeists? ;D
Skoosh.
-
This might help as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_visitation
-
God - I have seen quite a few inquests where the verdict has been delivered as "Visitation from God".
;D ;D ;D
Sorry - couldn't resist :-*
Cathy
-
This might help as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_visitation
Thanks. Any idea of what "proof of entitlement" consisted of?
-
This might help, too, and there are links back to the home page of the College. The College will do research for you (but at a price); my father was in correspondence with Bluemantle Pursuivant back in the 1970s, but that line of research drew a blank. Looks like my g-g-g-grandfather was using a crest and arms he wasn't entitled to: good thing that this was in England rather than Scotland, where the penalties can be surprising.
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/resources/the-law-of-arms
-
Thanks. Any idea of what "proof of entitlement" consisted of?
I think it means a genealogical tree showing the male line from whoever was granted the Arms, down to the claimant.
They will probably also require proof that no other claimants exist?
But it must meet the exacting requirements of the College of Arms, and they will probably want to draw it up themselves. That will cost a few thousand pounds!
And I don't think think DNA tests are suitable proof! ::)
-
And I don't think think DNA tests are suitable proof! ::)
DNA could help to indicate a legitimate male line, I suppose, but its power would be that it could certainly disprove a legitimate male line. I have no idea whether the Heralds would use this today.
But to be fair to the Heralds in the Visitations, that technology wasn't even a dream at the time! I loved teaching about DNA, sequencing, profiling and all the rest: it's absolutely fascinating and sheds so much light on the facts and principles that had already been elucidated before the discovery of its structure and workings.
-
There has never been a requirement that arms were granted in English heraldry.
In the first instance arms were simply by prescription or assumption.
The heralds during their visitations would view the arms and ensure they were not the same as those belonging to someone else. They would also check to see how long the arms had been in use by the family line. (All arms shown to have been in use prior to the battle of Agincourt were accepted as the existing by right without question.)
Heralds recognised arms upon strength of usage for a certain period, though no time scale was set for the period of usage.
There is a useful article on this topic in the magazine The Ancestor which was published between 1902 & 1905. It is contained in Volume VIII pages 113-144, published January 1904; Volume IX pages 214-224 published April 1904 ; and Volume X pages 51-69 published July 1904.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks guys, but I am still not sure of the status of junior lines.
Say if someone had a valid arms in 1400 and by the time of visitation c.1600 the senior line of descent still bore the arms, would junior lines also bear the arms? I understand that junior sons could have versions of the arms with additional cadency marks but was this always the case or was it optional?
-
Arms belong to an individual, so a member of a junior line could not bear the same arms. The arms go from father to eldest son down a legitimate line of descent. And arms are unique to one man at a time.
-
Arms belong to an individual, so a member of a junior line could not bear the same arms.
If you read this article on Cadency up to the end of the England section that would appear not to be the case:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadency
In particular:-
"For example, the College of Arms website (as of June 2006), far from insisting on any doctrine of One man one coat suggested by some academic writers, says:
… The arms of a man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their order of birth."
But still I get the impression that it was inconsistant with regard to whether junior lines actually did claim arms, never mind whether they were differenced.
-
Arms belong to an individual, so a member of a junior line could not bear the same arms. The arms go from father to eldest son down a legitimate line of descent. And arms are unique to one man at a time.
Not quite accurate.
It is quite a complicated issue really.
Arms were not held by an individual but were in a sort of halfway house of being attached to the land the individual owned and the individual. All members of that individuals family could display the arms of their father (marks of cadency were optional in English heraldry).
Daughters display the arms of their father on a lozenge rather than a shield.
The position today is different as arms are not tied to the land as in the past.
Cheers
Guy
-
To put my original question another way:-
Can anyone name some families that can be proved beyond doubt to have been eligible to bear arms and yet weren't listed in the Visitations?
-
???
What is the question you are really trying to ask?
What is the name of the family/person?
-
What is the question you are really trying to ask?
Can anyone name some families that can be proved beyond doubt to have been eligible to bear arms and yet weren't listed in the Visitations?
-
Hi supermousse,
Your question may be a bit hard for the members of this forum to answer unless somebody has personal knowledge of an example.
We are assuming that you are referring to English (or possibly Welsh) heraldry, not that of Scotland or Ireland.
We do not have access to the lists of Arms granted by the College of Arms, and the Visitations, which are available to us, took place over 350 years ago and varied considerably in their accuracy and coverage. Even that popular source Burke's General Armoury is known to contain many errors and flights of fancy.
Given that there has been no real oversight by the College of Arms for several centuries it is quite likely that many Arms in use today are not "approved" by visitation or grant. Whether that makes them "illegal" is a moot point, as they might well pass the test of a visitation if it were to be applied !
Maec
In the general sense, referring to your question about junior lines, the (male) children of an armiger (person entitled to have Arms) would also be considered armigerous and could therefore adopt their own arms, either by differencing their parent's arms or by adopting (assuming) new arms.
-
Every landowning family in England was, in the past, eligible to bear arms, not all appear in the Visitations.
Every Gentleman was eligible to bear arms, in the past, not all appear in the Visitations.
The problem is not finding the name of the person, though that could be an immense task but trolling through all the Visitations to see if they have been mentioned at any time.
Even if they were not it does not prove anything, they may for instance been out of the county when the herald held his Visitation. They may have been born after the last visitation or have died before a Visitation.
Some counties had many Visitations others few, Rutlandshire (as it used to be named) only had two, whereas Essex had five.
Are you trying to prove an armorial for a specific person?
If so who, where, when?
Cheers
Guy
-
We are assuming that you are referring to English (or possibly Welsh) heraldry, not that of Scotland or Ireland.
Correct.
-
Every landowning family in England was, in the past, eligible to bear arms, not all appear in the Visitations.
Even if they were not it does not prove anything, they may for instance been out of the county when the herald held his Visitation. They may have been born after the last visitation or have died before a Visitation.
Are your sure? If so, then say there was a Yorkshire knight called Sir Walter Marmaduke who came into land in Norfolk through marriage in the 1400s. He has 3 sons called Robert, Richard & Henry with Robert being the eldest. Robert in turn has a single daughter, Isabel, who marries Joseph Montague. Sir Marmadukes lands are passed down through his eldest son Robert and then to Isabel & Joseph Montague.
By the time of the Visitations the descendants of Isabel & Joseph Montague are listed along with their pedigree up to Sir Walter Marmaduke and they still hold the same land he passed on down to them.
There are other Marmadukes in the same area at the time of Visitation but they do not appear in it. Could these unlisted Marmadukes be descendants of Sir Walter's youngest sons, Richard & Henry or does the fact that Sir Marmadukes land went to a female descendant mean that there weren't any direct male descendants to inherit the land?
N.B. this is an example I made up off the top of my head so please don't go looking up the Marmadukes or Montagues in Burkes! ;)
-
Could these unlisted Marmadukes be descendants of Sir Walter's youngest sons, Richard & Henry or does the fact that Sir Marmadukes land went to a female descendant mean that there weren't any direct male descendants to inherit the land?
You would need the will to be certain, but inheritance always goes to the male lines?
Any exceptional circumstances would be mentioned in the will.
-
Under the rule of primogeniture the oldest son would inherit the estate of his parents if there was no male heir the daughters would inherit equally.
In the example you give the younger sons Richard and Henry miss out because their elder brother inherits the land, which then becomes his.
His children then have the right to inherit above the rights of Roberts brothers.
The fact that Robert’s daughter inherits shows Robert had no live sons when he died.
Cheers
Guy
-
I'm finding this thread rather confusing.
Both the original question and the restated one refer to Heraldic Visitations and Coats of Arms, but somehow we are now discussing land ownership. The two subjects are related but not the same.
To pick up on supermoussi's example : "Could these unlisted Marmadukes be descendants of Sir Walter's youngest sons, Richard & Henry or does the fact that Sir (Robert) Marmaduke's land went to a female descendant mean that there weren't any direct male descendants to inherit the land?"
Correct that there are no direct male descendants.Sir Robert Marmaduke had brothers but not sons.
His land has gone to his daughter who, as heiress, carries it with her to the Montagues. Richard and Henry have no claim to it.
With regard to arms, Sir Walter's original Arms are carried through to his grand-daughter and, after her marriage, may appear "impaled" with her husband's. Later Montagues may "quarter" the two arms to recognize the lineage.
Richard and Henry, being the sons of an "armiger" have the right each to their own arms. Often these will be Sir Walter's arms differenced in some way e.g.: by changing a field or a colour or adding a charge . ( Note that this is not the same as Cadency, which is a separate issue.) Alternatively, they may choose to adopt (assume) new arms for themselves.
By the time of the Visitations, many generations later, the descendants of Richard and Henry may have slipped so far down the social tree as to no longer be considered of appropriate status, and may well not be aware of their family background.
There is also the possibility of illegitimate descent, where the father has recognised the child as his and given him his surname, but no legal status inside the family.
Maec
-
By the time of the Visitations, many generations later, the descendants of Richard and Henry may have slipped so far down the social tree as to no longer be considered of appropriate status, and may well not be aware of their family background.
Ok, but surely where landholdings were concerned the pedigree would have had to be documented by some representative of the King as how would they know who inherits the land in the event of the eldest line (in the above case the Montagues) dying out? Wouldn't the Sheriffs/Heralds have to go and find living descendants of Sir Walter Marmaduke's two youngest sons, Richard & Henry?
-
So, are we discussing inheritance or pedigrees?
In the case of inheritance, wills were very important, and would have been proved at an Ecclesiastical Court.
Which court depends on where they lived, and how "important" they were.
The National Archives explains this here:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/wills-and-probate-records.htm
-
Supermoussi,
I don't pretend to be an expert in medieval property law but I suspect that in cases such as that proposed by you, where the Montagues died out with no legal heirs (i.e. no legitimate progeny or Wills, as mentioned by KGarrad), the estate would have been quickly seized on behalf of the Crown, and either resold or gifted to a new owner. Any Marmadukes thinking they had a claim could appeal to the King or, after the mid 1300s, to the Court of Chancery but this could be very expensive and, given the distance of their relationship from the Montagues, not very likely to succeed.
Certainly no great effort would be made to find distant relatives of the deceased.
Indeed, I understand that, even these days, relatives further removed than second cousins are barred from claiming intestate monies.
I hope this helps.
Maec
-
Ok, but surely where landholdings were concerned the pedigree would have had to be documented by some representative of the King as how would they know who inherits the land in the event of the eldest line (in the above case the Montagues) dying out? Wouldn't the Sheriffs/Heralds have to go and find living descendants of Sir Walter Marmaduke's two youngest sons, Richard & Henry?
No because land was devised by primogenture not gavelkind. Once the land was devised or inherited by Robert, Richard and Henry were out of the picture unless Robert had no issue (children).
The next inline would be Robert's sons in order of birth, failing that equally to Robert's daughters.
In the example given Robert had one daughter (Isabel).
Cheers
Guy
-
Certainly no great effort would be made to find distant relatives of the deceased.
I guess this might be even more the case during Henry VII and VIII's reigns as they went to great lengths to seize as much land as possible to fund their wars, assisted by the scheming Peter & John Dudley.
-
No because land was devised by primogenture not gavelkind. Once the land was devised or inherited by Robert, Richard and Henry were out of the picture unless Robert had no issue (children).
Wiki's definition of Primogeniture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture) ) states:-
In the absence of children, inheritance passed to collateral relatives, usually males, in order of seniority of their lines of descent. The eligible descendants of deceased elder siblings take precedence over living younger siblings, such that inheritance is settled in the manner of a depth-first search.
If you look at the diagram in its article on Depth-first search ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first_search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first_search) ) and super-impose the Marmaduke example, then Robert, Richard & Henry would be 2, 7 and 8, the Montagues 4 & 5. The way I read it it implies that in the absence of 4 and 5 having any issue then inheritance would pass back up to 6, then 7 then 8 then 9, etc, i.e. Richard and Henry's lines.
-
No because land was devised by primogenture not gavelkind. Once the land was devised or inherited by Robert, Richard and Henry were out of the picture unless Robert had no issue (children).
Wiki's definition of Primogeniture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture) ) states:-
In the absence of children, inheritance passed to collateral relatives, usually males, in order of seniority of their lines of descent. The eligible descendants of deceased elder siblings take precedence over living younger siblings, such that inheritance is settled in the manner of a depth-first search.
If you look at the diagram in its article on Depth-first search ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first_search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first_search) ) and super-impose the Marmaduke example, then Robert, Richard & Henry would be 2, 7 and 8, the Montagues 4 & 5. The way I read it it implies that in the absence of 4 and 5 having any issue then inheritance would pass back up to 6, then 7 then 8 then 9, etc, i.e. Richard and Henry's lines.
Very good except there was no abscence of children.
The first heir was Robert he in turn left a heir Isabel.
Cheers
Guy
-
Very good except there was no abscence of children.
The first heir was Robert he in turn left a heir Isabel.
But her line died out. Collateral relatives includes cousins so land could transfer back up the tree and down.
-
What are you actually asking?
You keep changing the details!
You gave an example showing a lineage down to Isabel we cannot answer questions from a stated imaginary lineage if you then require information about lines not detailed in the example.
The precise details of the situation change the answers that may be given, the rules that apply if there is issue, are different from the rules that apply when there is no issue.
The rules that apply when there is male issue, are different from the rules that apply when there is female issue.
The devil is in the detail.
Cheers
Guy
-
As I said back in reply #15:
???
What is the question you are really trying to ask?
What is the name of the family/person?
What is it you are trying to prove?
-
You keep changing the details!
The orginal example was just down to the descendants of the Montagues but remember the conversation went:-
Once the land was devised or inherited by Robert, Richard and Henry were out of the picture unless Robert had no issue (children).
and
Ok, but surely where landholdings were concerned the pedigree would have had to be documented by some representative of the King as how would they know who inherits the land in the event of the eldest line (in the above case the Montagues) dying out? Wouldn't the Sheriffs/Heralds have to go and find living descendants of Sir Walter Marmaduke's two youngest sons, Richard & Henry?
Feudal grants of lands (and arms) were typically (but not always) made to a person and the heirs of their body. Lands had to be kept as a whole and passed on down to the next generation of the family. If a senior line eventually died out then the next in line would be cousins of some sort hence the need to document junior lines.