Arms: "None Tricked" & Differencing

[supermoussi]

A couple of basic questions:-

1) In the Visitations of various counties I have seen pedigrees with "Arms: None Tricked" against them and no coat of arms displayed. I presume this is what "Arms: None" means i.e. the family didn't claim to bear arms. However, I have just looked at the Bucks Visitation of 1634 and it again lists pedigrees with "Arms: None Tricked" but they have coats of arms both displayed and described. I am obviously misunderstanding what "Arms: None Tricked" means. Can someone clarify this please?

2) My understanding of a typical old grant of arms was that it was common to grant them to a person and to their heirs, typically tail male, i.e. to the eldest son's eldest son's line, etc. Younger sons and daughters could apply to bear the arms but they had to be differenced to distinguish them, so over time different branches of a family could be identified by their arms. However, I have just been looking at the same presumed family who over time spread from Northants, Bucks, Dorset, Hereford, Somerset and Yorks and yet these different branches all seem to bear exactly the same arms. Is this possible or should alarm bells ring?

Thanks. 

[Little Nell]

Tricking of arms means that they are sketched/drawn in outline - no colours shown, but indicated by numbers or a line to the colour's name.

The arms are granted to a person and the inheritance of the undifferenced (i.e. unchanged) arms is restricted to heirs descended in the direct line from the original possessor.  However, there may have been some grants of arms where the grant was made to the person and his heirs general.  This may be what you have seen examples of.  Whichever it is, further investigation is probably required.

Nell

[supermoussi]

Thanks Nell. 

Tricking of arms means that they are sketched/drawn in outline - no colours shown, but indicated by numbers or a line to the colour's name.

Isn't that a contradiction in this case? i.e., it says they are non-tricked, so not sketched/drawn, and yet there is a drawing of them in the Visitation..

However, there may have been some grants of arms where the grant was made to the person and his heirs general.  This may be what you have seen examples of.  Whichever it is, further investigation is probably required.

If I remember correctly the College of Arms was only founded c.1490. I think the branches of the family probably split (just?) before this time so are there any other sources which can be researched?

[behindthefrogs]

Thanks Nell. 

Tricking of arms means that they are sketched/drawn in outline - no colours shown, but indicated by numbers or a line to the colour's name.

Isn't that a contradiction in this case? i.e., it says they are non-tricked, so not sketched/drawn, and yet there is a drawing of them in the Visitation..

When you say there is a drawing in the visitation you are presumably refering to a publication of the visitation from around 1900 rather than the original.

Some originals contained a blazon but no drawing.  In the publication a drawing was sometimes produced from the blazon or some other source.

[Little Nell]

David makes a good point - if you are looking at a printed version of the Visitation, this would have been produced centuries after the event.  Only the original visitation roll will help you there - and I have no idea where that might be.  The College of Arms is the obvious place, but it is not possible for the ordinary public to see these documents and the College charges a fee for searches.

The College of Arms was granted a charter of incorporation by Richard III in 1484 but this formalised the activities of the heralds which they had been carrying out for many years. 

While there are rules governing the granting and use of arms, as with all rules, many people break them.  Some families used arms without official grants.  I have an example in my own ancestry where a coat of arms is used on several occasions in the 17th and 18th century, but I can find no evidence in the visitations to back up its use.

Nell

[supermoussi]

Only the original visitation roll will help you there - and I have no idea where that might be.  The College of Arms is the obvious place, but it is not possible for the ordinary public to see these documents and the College charges a fee for searches.

At the top of one of the entries is the following ref:- MS. Eng. Misc. C. 17, f.59

Is that any clue to where the original is?

Also, the person at the beginning of the pedigree is quoted to originally have been "of Northamptonshire" which would point to them having good political links. Presumably this info was provided by the person who was "visited" in 1634, but to what extent would the heralds have verified the claim?

[Little Nell]

Have a look at the explanations here:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/vis.shtml

and in wikipedia:

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

Visitations were primarily carried out in the 15th and 17th centuries.  The published volume of visitations should explain what the abbreviations mean and the location of the source material.  It may be the British Museum manuscript collection or somewhere else entirely - I simply don't know, but I would hope that the book in which you found this would explain in the introduction.

You could always send an enquiry to the College of Arms themselves, who would be able to answer question far better than I.

Nell

[supermoussi]

Thanks Nell