RootsChat.Com
Some Special Interests => Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms => Topic started by: lucymags on Tuesday 04 December 18 06:06 GMT (UK)
-
I have been working on the Boltons of Woodridge, 16th & 17th century generations, and have come across the mention of a Grant of Arms to my 10th g-gfa, Thomas Bolton, by William Camden, the then Clarenceux King of Arms, in several published works, e.g. this one: https://archive.org/details/familyofboltonin00bolt/page/n29. (Most report 1615, although in one source, Suffolk Manorial Families, it gives the year as 1610 rather than 1615). The grant is based on Thomas being descended from the Boltons of Bolton in Lancashire (although I have been so far unable to find a direct link from his father, who was from Suffolk too - separate story).
There is a description and I found an illustration of it by googling. No problems there.
But this is the thing. According to other sources I have been using to derive genealogical information (although not all consistent) others have drawn the conclusion that Thomas is the 3rd eldest son, with William and then Robert ahead of him. By 1610, William is dead, but Robert lives until 1635, according to this chart in the Visitations of England and Wales (top right): https://archive.org/details/visitationofengl32howa/page/54.
Does anyone know how likely it is that this coat of arms would have been bestowed upon the second surviving son? What are the rules about this? (I am just wondering if one can draw a conclusion that Thomas was in fact older than Robert, or whether there might be some other reason why it was not granted to Robert.)
Edit: Or could it just be that Thomas applied for it himself and that's why he got it?
-
In normal circumstances, the arms would go to the eldest surviving son - standard inheritancy law.
For Robert not to have been granted the arms, there must have been a hearing/decision by the College of Arms, or senior court, or even the House of Lords.
Was Robert disinherited for some reason?
Was he not of sound mind?
-
Oh, I see - thanks KG.
There's no sign of madness or disinheritance - it says in the Visitation that he was" ...Mentioned in his father's will 26 January 1587; admitted tenant to Manor of Hollesley on death of his mother 16 December 1611; died 5 October 1635. Will dated 9 April 1635. Proved at Ipswich." (And married to Katherine, who was admitted tenant to the Manor at the same time.)
Which reminds me of another question (unrelated to coats of arms, but possibly related to the order of birth of the sons?) is what exactly being admitted tenant to a manor meant - because this is not mentioned with regard to Thomas. Thomas' will also shows no mention of the manor, so it does look as if Robert got that and it got passed down his line...
-
This article explains admittance far better than I can!
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/researchguidance/deedsindepth/copyhold/admittance.aspx
-
As Thomas’ father died in 1587, I would assume that Thomas applied for his own coat of arms in 1610/15
-
Thanks!
And now I have just realised that actually Katherine was only admitted (although it says "with her husband") on 17 April 1627 - over 15 years later than he was. ???
I'll carry on ploughing through these documents I have and also see if I can find anything relevant on the Manor of Hollesley...
-
As Thomas’ father died in 1587, I would assume that Thomas applied for his own coat of arms in 1610/15
Thanks, Lily - I'm just trying to work out why Robert, apparently his elder brother, did not apply for one himself? ???
-
I think I'm about to give up on this one. References to the Manor of Hollesley in other sources do not mention any Boltons. This one https://archive.org/details/cu31924092579600/page/n267 (The manors of Suffolk, etc.) says "The manor was forfeited to the Crown and held by Queen Elizabeth for the remainder of her life. In 1605, however. King Jas. I. granted the manor to Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, and Henry, Earl of Northampton, and they the same year sold it to Sir Michael Stanhope, of Sudbourne, Knt.,...".
(According to the Visitation, first tenant mentioned is the elder brother William in April 1587, shortly after his father's death. He dies in 1601. His widow and mother (both Annes) get admitted in 1608, and then when the mother dies in 1611, Robert gets it. Anne the widow remarries so I assume she goes elsewhere.)
Anyway, I think that I'll leave this and move on to Thomas's offspring now!
Edit: Oops, sorry, I just realised that the tenants lease the land, as per the info on the link on admittance, so would not have been mentioned in that book, which is about the owners or lords of the manor.
-
Another thought, relating to the granting of the coat of arms. If Robert was not married by 1610, and aged about 44 by then with no offspring, whereas Thomas was already married with offspring, would this have made a difference?
-
Only if Robert died! ;D
-
Oh, well then I just don't know. :-\
Perhaps Thomas was 2nd son, but went and bought land outside the manor after the eldest brother William became tenant there, got married, had kids, etc. and just didn't want to live there? Then after William and then later the mother died,, mummy's boy Robert applied for tenancy (and only got married later).
It'll have to wait until tomorrow now, when fresh eyes may help something else emerge!
Thanks for your help. :)
-
Another thing which seems like an indication of Thomas' seniority in age is the fact that he was executor of elder brother William's will in 1601. I think that I am going to put him above Robert in my tree (with copious notes on both).
If anything concrete to confirm or contradict this assumption turns up, I'll post FYI - else I think this query is pretty much done, thank you.
-
Do you have details of Thomas' death?
They are mentioned in Thomas Seckford's work, published 1792 - "The statutes and ordinances for the government of the alms-houses in Woodbridge ....". A searchable version available on google books.
-
Do you have details of Thomas' death?
They are mentioned in Thomas Seckford's work, published 1792 - "The statutes and ordinances for the government of the alms-houses in Woodbridge ....". A searchable version available on google books.
Do you mean Thomas senior, or the son? Either way, I have some details of death but haven't looked at that work yet, so thanks for that. I'm on my tablet now and although I can see the bibliographic details, it's not showing a preview or allowing me to search. I'll have to have another look on the computer tomorrow if I can find time.