Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - davidbappleton

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13]
109
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: Hodges memorial Bath Abbey
« on: Tuesday 08 March 11 18:17 GMT (UK)  »

Something I hoped someone else would comment on, because
I am on shaky ground, is the canton (the banner)
you asked about. I am open to correction, but believe
a canton is used to bear a charge issued as an
augmentation to an existing achievement of arms, for
example in recognition of service to a monarch, or
prowess in battle.

A charged canton is sometimes used for an augmentation of arms, but as the song goes, "it ain't necessarily so."  That said, most of the charged cantons I can think of off the top of my head were augmentations of arms.  Still, Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials has something like eight pages of arms which are nothing but the field and "on a canton" one or more charges, most of which are not augmentations.


The ducal (three strawberry leaves) coronet does not
necessarily represent nobility in the Hodges family, my
reasoning being that the wreath is missing from the
crest, and the coronet has taken its place, the crest
being simply the crescent issuing from  it. This is just
my theory. Perhaps, in monumental masonry, the wreath
might be omitted deliberately as David has already
explained re the hatching.

The coronet here (the one beneath the crescent crest, not the one on the canton) is frequently called a "crest coronet."  It is simply a substitution for the more usual wreath (or torse).  I doubt that the mason would have made this substitution; a wreath is much easier to carve than a crest coronet.  But the use of a crest coronet is not at all unusual to find in use.

David

110
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: Hodges memorial Bath Abbey
« on: Monday 07 March 11 21:46 GMT (UK)  »
In this case, the monumental mason seems to have made a
mistake with the tincture of the crescents, ...

It is very common for charges (like the crescents here, and, indeed, the coronet on the canton) to not be "hatched" in monumental heraldry.  It's not so much a "mistake," I think, as it may be the difficulty of accurately hatching complex charges without taking the chance of having a bit pop off and then having to redo the entire thing.  As a general rule, if the field and major charges (especially ordinaries and subordinaries) are properly hatched, then the failure to engrave the tinctures of lesser charges does not seriously compromise the identification of the arms.  And identification is, after all, the reason for heraldry in the first place.

Just my two cents worth.

David

111
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: Hodges memorial Bath Abbey
« on: Monday 07 March 11 21:39 GMT (UK)  »
Would Sir James Hodges when he was Knighted have then received new arms if he was formerly entitled to any?
How does a book publisher become town clerk of london?
His father apparently was a barber surgeon.

While it could happen, it is generally unlikely that a person would change his arms upon knighthood.  (For one thing, he'd have to pay the heralds for a new grant of arms.  Why go to that expense when you already have a perfectly good coat of arms?)

For your second question, the temptation is to reply, "In the usual way, I suppose," which, of course, tells you nothing.  The truthful answer is "I don't know,", but it doesn't seem to me all that unusual that a businessman in the city would become the town clerk.

112
Thanks!  I like to think I know a little bit about the topic.  (But there's always so much more to learn!)

David

113
I found myself intrigued a bit by this whole thing, so when I got home last night I went and checked Rolland and Rolland's illustrations to Rietstap's Armorial Général.  And while I learned that I had translated the blazon of the arms reasonably well (the snake is more "embowed-counter-embowed" than it is "wavy"), I also learned that those arms do not belong to "Pulsever/Pulsifer" (in these or any other reasonable spelling variant beginning with Puls...).  The entry in Rietstap is for Pulosevits (from Serbia) (see the attached .jpg from Rolland and Rolland).  Whoever gave the information on that coat of arms in The Genealogical and Family History of the State of Maine was flat-out incorrect.

I should be shocked, but this sort of thing happens, and has happened, for a very long time.  Even in colonial Boston you find the arms of a family (in one specific instance that I recall, the arms of Scholar) being pawned off as the arms of another family whose name sounded similar (in that example, Scolly).  It appears that something similar occurred here.  As William Berry, in his An Introduction to Heraldry (1810), noted: "every coach, house, and sign painter pretends to a knowledge of the science of heraldry, rather than lose the job when offered."

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news about this particular coat of arms, but I thought you should know.

David

114
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: seahorse crest
« on: Tuesday 01 March 11 14:56 GMT (UK)  »
The heads of the supporters are much more like a heraldic seahorse which usually has the head of a lion when used as a supporter while the heraldic dolphin usually has a long beak.  However there are sufficient variations from the norm that I would accept either.

When appearing couchant (laying down) on a shield or as a crest the heraldic seahorse usually has the front half of a horse.

I have never seen an heraldic sea-horse with the head of a lion, even when used as as supporter; I have seen a few heraldic sea-lions with such.  However, in both cases the forelegs are those of a horse or lion (though with webbed feet); the supporters here pretty clearly have fins rather than forelegs, hence my identification of them as heraldic dolphins.

David

115
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: seahorse crest
« on: Monday 28 February 11 22:34 GMT (UK)  »
I can't workout what the crest (which sits on top of the shield) actually represents from your pictures.  The supporters of the shield are probably sea horses but these are rarely of much help in identifying a coat of arms.  The most important feature is usually the shield followed by the crest both of which are not clear enough to help.

The presence of supporters in a coat of arms originally meant that it probably belonged to high ranked peerage or royalty, although in recent years companies and places have also used them in their arms.

My guess is that it is the arms of a company or town probably located on the coast

The supporters do not look to me so much like sea-horses as they do the typical heraldic dolphin.  (Which look nothing like the real-life dolphin!)

David

116
Heraldry Crests and Coats of Arms / Re: German ancestry
« on: Monday 28 February 11 22:29 GMT (UK)  »
As you are probably aware in England there is no such thing as a family crest or coat of arms.  They belong to individuals not families and I believe the same applies to Germany.

You would probably make more progress by posting a request about your ancestor on the Europe board.

To my knowledge, in Germany (or rather, what is now Germany), arms were originally borne by (or granted to) individuals, but were inherited undifferenced by all of the sons of the original armiger.  (And by their sons, and by their sons, and so on.)

David

117
The coat-of-arms  is given in Rietstap: De gu, a'une aigle de profil d'or le vol leve perchee sur un serpent de sin, ondoant en forme de S pose en bends la tete en haut. Crest: Un lion ramp patti d'or et de gu tenant de ses pattes un demi-vol de gu.

It can be tricky to parse a French blazon, since the words don't necessarily mean the same thing as in everyday French (e.g., "meuble" in blazon is a "charge", whereas the everyday meaning is "table").  It's complicated here by the use of abbreviations (e.g., "sin" is an abbreviation of "sinople" which in English blazon is "vert" and whose everyday meaning is "green"), in addition to mistakes in the transcription from Rietstap (e.g., "patti" instead of "parti").  However, this is what I get out of it:

De gules, a une aigle de profil d’or le vol leve perchee sur un serpent de sinople, ondoant en forme de S pose en bends la tete en haut.  Crest: un lion rampant patti [I suspect that this word should be “parti”] d’or et de gules tenant de ses pattes un demi-vol de gules.

An English blazon would be:  Gules, an eagle rising wings elevated or perched atop a snake undy in bend head to chief vert.  Crest: A lion rampant per pale or and gules holding in its paws a demi-vol gules.

On a red shield, a gold/yellow eagle seen from the side with its wings upward perched  on a green snake whose body is wavy back and forth and whose orientation is head to the left and up and tail down and to the right.  The crest is a lion rampant (rearing) divided vertically, gold/yellow to the left and red to the right as you are looking at it, holding in its paws a red wing.

I hope that this information is helpful to you.

David

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13]