Concept of impaling...

[Carole in Dallas]

I have been using Visitation of England and Wales while researching several of my lines...

In several instances I see the main name Dowdeswell impaling the name of the wife coming into the marriage....what is going on in this case?  in 1600, my Roger Dowdeswell married Martha Blomer and I see a crest half Dowdeswell and half Blomer.  Then in 1628 when Richard Dowdeswell married Anne Pleydell, I see a crest half Dowdeswell and half Pleydell.  Likewise, William Dowdeswell married Judith Wymondsell in 1652 and there is this merging of Dowdeswell and Wymondsell.  At this point, my relative is a woman, Ann Dowdeswell,  and she marries the son of Viscount Robert Tracy II (who was not the first son).  Was it at this point that they both lost their right to carry any family crest? Is it usually passed down to the first born son?  What happens if some of these lines died away...can a family member obtain rights to such a crest? 

[Little Nell]

Carole,

Can you clarify: do you mean you can see half a shield with Dowdeswell on it and the other half has Blomer?  Or are the arms  themselves halved (so you might get something strange like the front part of the body of a lion).  This would be called dimidiation and was a very early form of impalement.

Or when you say crest, are you talking about the part that sits on top of the shield?  These are not usually halved in any way - at least I don't recall this at all.

I think you are describing the shield - the coat of arms.  The inclusion of the two coats of arms from two families on one shield indicates the arms as used by the couple after their marriage.  If the woman was not an heraldic heiress then her coat of arms would be removed on her death.  It would not be handed down to her children.

Your questions are all good ones, but all I can give is an answer based on the heraldic rules.  The trouble is, they were not always obeyed and there was sometimes some creative use of arms as  heraldry became more complicated.  Originally used as a way of identifying knights on the battlefield or at the tournament, it became less used for this purpose and more symbolic and very decorative.

I really would recommend that you borrow a good book on heraldry basics.  It will help you understand what should happen in an ideal situation - and also give examples of what happened when the normal conventions were not followed, or how things changed in time. 

Nell

[Carole in Dallas]

When you look at the crest...the left half would be of the male Dowdeswell....and the right half would be of the bride's family.  Nothing is placed on top of the other.  Each crest is split in half and put together....showing half of each family's crest.  This looks so odd to me.

[Carole in Dallas]

What was the ultimate purpose of having a family coat of arms...and a family crest?  Was it a class distinction of some kind?

[Little Nell]

Carole,

Insert Quote 
What was the ultimate purpose of having a family coat of arms...and a family crest?  Was it a class distinction of some kind? 

As I said in my previous post, originally it was a means of recognizing knights on the battlefield and during tournaments.  They used badges and coats of arms on seals for letters and documents.   These were more easily recognised by people who could not read and so gave the documents credence.  With time, the use of coats of arms became more symbolic - simply because knights did not go to war and fight in tournaments.  However, anyone can apply for their own coat of arms to the College of Arms in London.

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/

Can you have a look at the diagram on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms

The crest is the part of the achievement at the very top of the whole thing.

The shield is the coat of arms.  So are you looking at a shield?  i.e. the coat of arms, which can be impaled, but crests would be jolly hard to do.

An example of an impaled coat of arms is shown on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement_%28heraldry%29

Two families whose arms are only shown on one shield for as long as the marriage lasts, unless the wife is an heraldic heiress i.e. with no brothers to inherit title or lands.

This was normal heraldic practice.  If the wife was an heiress then the arms would be quartered by their son - shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_%28heraldry%29

This is the arms of the Duke of Norfolk, showing four quarters, but in fact he could use more as a result of dynastic marriages in his family's past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duke_of_Norfolk_Arms.svg

Nell

[Stephen J F Plowman]

When an armigerous man marries an armigerous women they can display their Arms on one shield as a heraldic display of their union.  

For example we have:

Edmond Twedy & Thomasine Price
Argent a saltire engrailed Gules a Chief Azure with a mullet for difference (for Twedye) impaling Sable a chevron Argent between three spear-heads of the second tipped Gules (for Price)


Where the wife is a heraldic heiress and her father is still living, she displays her Arms in the centre of the shield:

CHRISTIE-MILLER of Craigentinny

Quarterly 1st & 4th Arg. a cross moline az. charged with five lozenges Or (for Miller) 2nd & 3rd Or, a saltire engrailed between a mullet in chief and base and in each flank a rose Sable (for Christie) over all on an escutcheon of pretence quarterly i & iv Argent. a cross moline Azure ii Argent a spur-revel Azure between three cross crosslets fitchee Gules iii Parted per fess Azure and Sable a castle with four towers Argent the porch open and windows of the second.

[Carole in Dallas]

I cannot thank all of you in the UK for helping me understand this practice. This is so foreign to all of us in the states....all of you are wonderful.