Interpreting a Blazon

[Koromo]

Our family 'heirloom' is a rather tacky oil painting of the BROTHERS coat of arms, painted perhaps over 100 years ago. Studying it again, I realise that the griffins' heads have guttée de sang; the third one also appears to be gorged.

I've recently come across a couple of variations of the blazon.  In the second one below, it seems to be saying that the lozenges are gold on a gold fess which goes against the 'rules' of not putting a metal on a metal, doesn't it?  Were the rules often broken, or have I misinterpreted the blazon?

This family were in Nottingham in the latter half of the 18th century.  I've checked the Nottingham Visitation (on David's [behindthefrogs] advice some time ago) but there are no BROTHERS.

There is a short BROTHERS pedigree in the 1623 Wiltshire Visitation, p18, which has the words, "Non probavit arma sed defertur."  Does this mean their arms were submitted/recorded but not approved or awaiting approval?  None of the heraldry dictionaries/armories give a geographic location for the BROTHERS blazon so I don't know if it belonged to a Wiltshire man.

All this is trying to find a clue for which county my 4x gr-grandfather was born c1754.  He was an upholsterer of Nottingham and he did have some upmarket customers (eg. the Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne and Lord Byron) so he could well have appropriated the coat of arms to impress them!

Koromo

Note: the blazons are from An Ordinary of British Armorials (Papworth), Vol 2, p827
The abbreviation V. means that the source is Glover's Ordinary.

[Little Nell]

Generally, the rule is a metal object cannot be put on a metal field.  But, there are exceptions.

If the field is varied of a metal and a colour, then a charge of either metal or colour may be laid on it, provided that it rests on the field as a whole: it cannot rest only on one of the tinctures. 

Also the rule is relaxed in the case of bordures, chiefs and a charge which surmounts both the field and another charge.

The rule does not apply to furs.

Not quite sure where that leaves you. 

Nell

[Koromo]

Hi Nell

I guess I was trying to decide which of the blazons most closely resembled the painting — in case I ever stumbled on an individual BROTHERS' name linked to one particular blazon.

If the field is varied of a metal and a colour, then a charge of either metal or colour may be laid on it, provided that it rests on the field as a whole: it cannot rest only on one of the tinctures. 

Sooooo … can I take it that gold lozenges should not rest on a gold fess as per the painting.

I had always presumed that the lozenges in the painting were ermine because of the 'dots' on them, but ermine should be white.  It made me wonder if the artist had worked from a different blazon … or maybe he just didn't know the rules!

Thank you for the exceptions.  Coats of arms are so complicated to understand, but utterly fascinating.

Koromo

[Little Nell]

None of the blazons fits the arms depicted - the third griffin's head does seem to be gorged.

I take the rule to mean that the charge can be either metal or colour but must rest on the background colour(s) (the field) overall.  The fess is not part of the field: it is an ordinary or charge and the lozenge is a further charge on that charge.

I also took the lozenges to be ermine.   I wonder if there is an element of age in the painting (in other words, perhaps a little faded!)

I have found the blazon in Burke's General Armory as well, but that is reckoned to be less than realiable at times.  It contains a coat of arms that one of my families used, but they do not ever seem to have either registered the arms or been granted them.    That hasn't stopped the arms being impaled with another family's arms or apparently being engraved on some silver.

Nell

[Koromo]

 The fess is not part of the field ...

My mistake!  It's taking me a while to get used to the terminology.

The colour of the lozenges in the painting is definitely brownish, with no hint of once being white — uh, the colour of an ermine/stoat's summer coat!

Thanks for your comments.
Happy Christmas! 

[Stephen J F Plowman]

The lozenges could be Erminois - gold field with black spots.  It might depend on how someone "shortened" the blazon for the furs.

As for location, one of the Visitations of Wiltshire (1623) viewable online lists them as Brothers of Knowell (Knoyle).

As to "Non probavit arma sed defertur".  I think it was not unheard of for those claiming the use of Arms not to have the documentation "available" for inspection.    They gave an undertaking to provide it later.  Short of an enquiry at the College of Arms it is unclear whether or not it was a genuine undertaking or a ruse to avoid being "disclaimed".

[Koromo]

As for location, one of the Visitations of Wiltshire (1623) viewable online lists them as Brothers of Knowell (Knoyle).

As to "Non probavit arma sed defertur".  I think it was not unheard of for those claiming the use of Arms not to have the documentation "available" for inspection.    They gave an undertaking to provide it later.  Short of an enquiry at the College of Arms it is unclear whether or not it was a genuine undertaking or a ruse to avoid being "disclaimed".

What's the bet that the 1623 BROTHERS of Knowell/Knoyle are the same family as Thomas BRETHER of Knoyle who appears in the 1565 Wiltshire Visitation (page 56) on a list of men who "disclaymed the name of a gentleman" before the Clarencieulx Kinge of Arms.  They all sound decidedly dodgy to me, and could well be the reason why there is never any indication in later armories of where or who Mr BROTHERS was. 

I'd love to be able to afford the College of Arms research fees, but that will have to wait for a lottery win!

I like Erminois for the lozenges, and it fits the colouring of the painting perfectly.  Thanks for that.

Koromo