Coat of Arms

[behindthefrogs]

Hi Harewoodhouse

The shield which you have reproduced has no crest.  The helmet and crest are replaced by the coronet which show that the coat of arms belongs to an earl. (I stand corrected)

The shield (which our US cousins insist on calling a crest) is quartered with the two pairs of quarters identical.  This shows that the shield is of the second generation or later of the two families which had those arms.  The original husband and wife would have their shield halved with the two arms side by side.

The paternal line is the one in the first and fourth quarters (top left and bottom right as you look at them).  The wife would have been an heraldic heiress, that is had no surviving brothers or issue of brothers who would inherit the arms in preference.

I don't recognize either of the shields which have been combined but the wife's is sufficiently complicated for it to have been differenced a number of times (had bits added) indicating that it is probably some distance both in terms of generations and involving younger sons from the original grant.

David

[harewoodhouse]

  thank you for that, and at least I now know what parts of the design are from the quinn side and the other bits must of come from the polish side the GISBITZKY's who I have just found out probably were not called that at all but  GRZYBICKI but in english that is what it sounds like and according to JAP there are about 18 000 hits for that name on google so I might take awhile tracking them down     thanks once again....sue

[Little Nell]

The Dunraven coat of arms that was posted on you reply no 14 shows an earl's coronet above it.  The quarter with the red background is the Quin of Thomond coat of arms.  The other quarter is for the Quin of Annaly family.

It is not unusual to find similar charges (e.g. crescents, lions, horses) on totally unrelated coats of arms.  The shield with the stags on it looks more continental than British, but that is just an opinion.

Nell

[harewoodhouse]

 just been looking on this site
http://genealog.home.pl/
and the  GRZYBOWSKI   family have an arm holding a sword coming from the top above the helmet...interesting

[behindthefrogs]

just been looking on this site
http://genealog.home.pl/
and the  GRZYBOWSKI   family have an arm holding a sword coming from the top above the helmet...interesting

In the early days of coats of arms it was not unusual for the crest (on the helmet) to be the same as the charge on the shield.  The crest often goes unchanged through many grants of arms and can be another lead to the origin of a family.  It also often comes from the most prestigious line from which a family is descended and not always through the hereditary line.

For example the swans neck crest on the avitar that I use is believed to have originated from the Count of Boulogne and to have been brought over with William the Conquerer even though the Count of Bolougne was not in fact a Norman.  This in turn is supposed to come from the count's marriage to a female descendant of Charlemagne.  The story of the Swan Knight as told in Wagner's opera Lohengrin is said to come from the same origins.

David

[harewoodhouse]

this is a little like it

[harewoodhouse]

  sorry about that it didn't attach
there are 15 shields in  peerages of England , Scotland and Ireland 1790
and then there is the Irish viscount taaffe  who has the same arm but a horse and dragon are holding it

[harewoodhouse]

 although these ones have their heads turned. oh and I meant that there are 15 with stags on 

[Little Nell]

The stag is a common supporter on many coats of arms.  It does not necessarily imply that there is a connection between the owners of the coats of arms.  Supporters in the early days of heraldry were often the same on each side, but in modern times it is common for them to be non-identical e.g. the Royal Arms has a lion and a unicorn as supporters.

The right to bear supporters is now restricted to those to whom they have been granted.

Nell